Court Affirms IADA Dismissal Without Prejudice; Other Related Issues

US v. Peterson: Peterson and his codefendant, Bun, were inmates in a South Carolina prison when they were charged federally with running a methamphetamine distributing ring while incarcerated. They were brought to federal court but Peterson, in violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (“IADA”) was sent back to state prison in violation of the Act’s “anti-shuttling” provision. The district court dismissed the indictment without prejudice as to both defendants, but a new indictment was obtained (and a subsequent superseding indictment) and both defendants were eventually convicted after a jury trial and sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment (to be served consecutively to their lengthy state terms of imprisonment).

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions, focusing on the arguments related to the IADA and similar issues arising under the Speedy Trial Act (“STA”). First, the defendants argued that the district court should have dismissed the initial indictment with prejudice rather than without (a similar state violation under the IADA would require dismissal with prejudice). Reviewing for abuse of discretion, the court looked at the three factors the IADA lays out for making that determination and found that they all cut against the defendants. First, all parties agreed that the seriousness of the charged offenses weighed in favor of dismissal without prejudice. Second, the court concluded that the “surrounding facts and circumstances” weighed in favor of dismissal without prejudice because although the US Marshals in South Carolina have a history of violating IADA in this particular case the moving of Peterson was done at his request so that he could be closer to counsel. Finally, the court concluded that the “administration of justice” weighed in favor of dismissal without prejudice because although the defendants were already serving long state prison sentences (in Bun’s case, a life sentence) the federal government has a “weighty interest” in seeking convictions for offenses committed against the United States. The court next held that the defendants’ speedy trial rights under IADA were not violated because those provisions should be construed as closely as possible to match the STA and the delays here were excusable under the STA. Finally, the court held that the superseding indictment was not untimely filed under the STA because the indictment returned after the dismissal of the initial indictment was done within the 30-day limit set forth in the STA.