Two cases today.
First, in United States v. Mixon, --- F.3d ---, No. 18-10216 (9th Cir. 2019), the Court affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion
for attorneys’ fees under the Hyde Amendment.
The Hyde Amendment allows the district court to order attorneys' fees for a prevailing criminal defendant when “the position
of the United States was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith.”
18 U.S.C. § 3006A note.
Here, the defendant conceded there was no prosecutorial misconduct, alleging instead misconduct by the investigating agents.
The Court held, "unless there is
serious misconduct on the part of prosecutors—those
empowered to make litigation decisions on behalf of the
United States—a court could not hold that “the position of the
United States” as a whole was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad
faith. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A note. In other words, in the
absence of prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant cannot
make out a claim for attorneys’ fees under the Hyde
Amendment."
Second, in United States v. Myers, --- F.3d ---, No. 17-30159 (9th Cir. 2019), the Court vacated the district court’s dismissal of a
criminal defendant’s speedy trial claim and remanded.
This case concerns defendants' Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial (not the Speedy Trial Act) when a federal prosecution is delayed pending resolution of a state prosecution.
The Court declined to adopt a per se rule that the government has a valid reason to delay a federal
prosecution when the defendant is subject to concurrent state
proceedings. Instead, it adopted an ad hoc approach
to evaluating they delay,
holding that a trial court must consider the nature and
circumstances of the delay in order to determine whether (and
how much) it weighs against the government.
Because it was unclear whether the district court applied the correct standard, the Court remanded. Of note, the delay here was 22 months, which raised a presumption of prejudice.
