UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ERIC MICHAEL SCHUSTER - Articles

All Content

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ERIC MICHAEL SCHUSTER

Posted by: Azya Thornton on May 2, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Mary B. Young, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: William R. Gallagher, ARENSTEIN & GALLAGHER, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Mary B. Young, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: William R. Gallagher, ARENSTEIN & GALLAGHER, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee.

Judge(s): GRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati

BUSH, Circuit Judge. More than six years after his indictment, Defendant-Appellee Eric Schuster moved to dismiss three felony child pornography charges pending against him. He argued the federal government’s failure to bring him to trial violated the Sixth Amendment’s Speedy Trial Clause. Finding that Schuster caused most of the delay, the district court denied his motion. But upon reconsideration, the district court reversed course and dismissed his indictment with prejudice.This is a difficult case, and the record before us should trouble any jurist. Because we respectfully disagree with how the district court applied the factors outlined in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), however, we REVERSE. Specifically, though some of the delay in Schuster’s trial is attributable to the dilatory action of the district court, Schuster is more to blame for the overall delay. Perhaps most importantly, Schuster failed to sincerely assert his right to a speedy trial in a timely manner—Schuster’s litigation conduct as a whole indicates that he did not want a speedy trial. And his failure to demonstrate prejudice resulting from the delay slams the door shut. Though finding ways to move this case forward more quickly would have been greatly preferable to the actual pace of the proceedings, Schuster was not denied his right to a speedy trial. His prosecution may go forward.

Attachments: