UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │ Plaintiff-Appellant, │ > No. 23-3834 │ v. │ │ ERIC MICHAEL SCHUSTER, │ Defendant-Appellee. │ ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati. No. 1:16-cr-00051-1—Timothy S. Black, District Judge.

Argued: October 31, 2024

Decided and Filed: May 2, 2025

Before: GRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: Mary B. Young, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. William R. Gallagher, ARENSTEIN & GALLAGHER, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Mary B. Young, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. William R. Gallagher, ARENSTEIN & GALLAGHER, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee. _________________

OPINION _________________

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 No. 23-3834 United States v. Schuster Page 2

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.

I.

A.

In 2014, federal law enforcement began investigating a website known as “Playpen,” a site used to distribute child pornography. The Department of Justice eventually obtained a warrant authorizing agents to employ a special-investigative technique that revealed the IP addresses of Playpen users. Using the warrant, law enforcement obtained the identifying information of Playpen users, including one user who accessed Playpen from an address in Ohio associated with Schuster. Federal agents then obtained a warrant to search Schuster’s residence and seize electronics found therein. The subsequent search of Schuster’s home uncovered multipl