USA v. Ward et al

- 1 -
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Darnell Anthony Ward,
Defendant.
Case No. 1:25-cr-00160
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
[¶ 1] 	THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment
filed on February 14, 2026. Doc. No. 66. The United States filed a Response on February 18, 2026.
Doc. No. 69. The Defendant filed a Reply on February 19, 2026. Doc. No. 70. For the reasons
stated below, the Motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
[¶ 2] 	An Indictment filed on July 16, 2025, charged the Defendant with Attempted Possession
with Intent to Distribute Fentanyl in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B)(vi), and
846. Doc. No. 1. Defendant was arrested on July 31, 2025, and had his initial appearance on August
5, 2025. Doc. Nos. 4, 6. A detention hearing was held on August 18, 2025, at which time Magistrate
Judge Hochhalter ordered the Defendant detained pending trial. Doc. No. 17.
[¶ 3] 	Trial was originally scheduled for October 7, 2025. Doc. No. 11. However, on September
5, 2025, Attorney Magdalena Brockel (“Attorney Brockel”) filed a Motion to Continue indicating
the Defendant did not consent but she had another federal trial on October 2, 2025. Doc. No. 25.
The Court granted the Motion to Continue making an “ends of justice” finding, specifically noting
Case 1:25-cr-00160-DMT Document 75 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
the Defendant would be deprived of continuity of counsel by not continuing trial. Doc. No. 26.
Trial was continued until March 10, 2026. Id.
[¶ 4] 	On September 15, 2025, the Defendant filed a Motion to Substitute Counsel. Doc. No. 29.
The Court denied that Motion, holding that (1) Attorney Brockel had no choice but to request a
trial continuance given the Red Tomahawk trial, (2) the Defendant’s constitutional right to a
speedy trial had not been violated, and (3) that appointing new counsel would likely result in even
more significant delay for the Defendant’s trial than continuing the case. Doc. No. 30.
[¶ 5] 	On October 21, 2025, the Defendant filed a pro se Motion to Dismiss Indictment for
Speedy Trial Act violations previously raised. Doc No. 31. See also Doc. No. 30. The Defendant
filed a Motion to Substitute Attorney in November 2025, Doc. No. 36; however, after a hearing,
Magistrate Judge Hochhalter found no “conflicts or an irreparable breakdown in communications
that would necessitate the appointment of substitute counsel.” Doc. No. 38.
[¶ 6] 	A Superseding Indictment was filed on November 20, 2025, which added a co-Defendant
and charged the Defendant with an additional count: Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with
Intent to Distribute Controlled Substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B)(vi),
and 841(b)(1)(C). Doc. No 41. Defendant was arraigned on the new count on November 25, 2025.
Doc. No. 47.
DISCUSSION
[¶ 7] 	The grounds for this motion are the same as the previous motions filed pro se by the
Defendant, but this time it is through counsel. See Doc. Nos. 25, 29, 31. Defendant argues his
Speedy Trial clock ran out in November 2025 because the continuation the Court granted in
Case 1:25-cr-00160-DMT Document 75 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
September, and subsequent delay until March 2026, was in violation of his rights and requests his
indictment be dismissed with prejudice. Doc. No. 66.1
[¶ 8] 	The Eighth Circuit has deemed continuity of counsel a valid reason for an “ends of justice”
finding. See United States v. Stackhouse, 183 F.3d 900, 901 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). Whether
or not the ends of justice outweighed the right to a speedy trial is a fact determination. Id. at 902.
According to the record before the Court at the time the Motion was made and granted, the ends
of justice were best served by continuing the trial instead of appointing new counsel. See Doc. No.
26. A defendant’s objection does not change the ruling of the Court that all time is excluded from
the speedy trial clock. See United States v. Herbst, 666 F.3d 504, 510 (8th Cir. 2012) (Defendant’s
“opposition to his counsel’s request for a continuance does not prevent that time from being
excluded from the speedy trial calculation.”). The Court finds nothing on the record that would
invalidate its September or its October ruling. See Doc. Nos. 26, 33. The Court’s previous
calculation of nineteen days is less than 70 days and therefore, there is no Speedy Trial Act
violation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1).
[¶ 9] 	Further, all this argument about the previous continuance is moot. The Defendant was
charged with a new co-defendant in a Superseding Indictment on November 20, 2025. Doc. No.
41. When a defendant is joined, the speedy trial clock is reset. United States v. Lightfoot, 483 F.3d
876, 885–86 (8th Cir. 2007) (“[W]e have held that when a newly indicted or arraigned defendant
is joined with a defendant whose speedy trial clock has already started running, the latter
defendant’s speedy trial clock will be reset so that it reflects the speedy trial clock of the newly
added codefendant.”). The Speedy Trial count now stands at zero, which is less than 70 days and
therefore, there is no Speedy Trial Act violation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1).
1 The Court notes that this Motion was filed in February, nearly three months after the alleged
clock ran out and only three weeks before the new trial date.
Case 1:25-cr-00160-DMT Document 75 Filed 02/24/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
CONCLUSION
[¶ 10] Based on the above, the Court finds there is no violation of the Defendant’s speedy trial
rights under the Speedy Trial Act or the Sixth Amendment. Consequently, the Defendant’s Motion
to Dismiss Indictment (Doc. No. 66) is DENIED. The trial set for March 10, 2026, will continue
as scheduled.
[¶ 11] IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED February 24, 2026.
Daniel M. Traynor, District Judge
United States District Court
Case 1:25-cr-00160-DMT Document 75 Filed 02/24/26 Page 4 of 4