JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge:
Frank Pitts appeals from his conviction for interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312 (Dyer Act). Because we reject the contentions that (i) the trial of Pitts in the Northern District of Georgia violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment, (ii) prejudicial error arose from failure to allow nonexpert testimony as to handwriting comparison, and (iii) error exists because a F.R.Crim.P. 17(b) subpoena was quashed, we affirm the conviction.
A Cadillac To Eldorado
Sometime prior to July 19, 1973, Pitts took a 1965 cadillac belonging to Mr. and Mrs. Bernard Wenke of Decatur, Georgia, on a test drive. The following day, Pitts returned with a mechanic to inspect the engine for possible valve difficulties. Part of the inspection was another drive which metamorphosed into an extended trip. Realizing that their car had not been and was not likely to be returned, the Wenkes reported its theft to the Decatur police on July 19, 1973. While in this car on August 4, 1973, Pitts was arrested on unrelated charges in Eldorado, Illinois by the Eldorado Police Chief.
The Government initiated the prosecution process in the Eastern District of Illinois. In quick succession, Pitts was indicted in August 1973, pleaded not guilty on September 10, 1973, and was set for trial on November 5, 1973. On the day that this trial was to commence, both sides stated that they were ready to proceed.
The District Judge denied this motion and instructed the Government to present evidence. Prior to making any opening statement or calling any witnesses, the Government moved for a dismissal of the indictment under F.R.Crim.P. 48(a). The trial judge dismissed the indictment
To Be Or Not To Be
On November 7, 1973, two days after the dismissal of the Government's first attempt to try Pitts, a complaint was filed and a bench warrant issued in the Northern District of Georgia to initiate the prosecution process again. For some unexplained reason, the Eastern District of Illinois Judge prevented execution of the warrant issued for Pitts. Continuing its attempt to bring Pitts to trial, the Government obtained another indictment and another bench warrant on January 22, 1974. This warrant was forwarded to the Eastern District of Illinois where the District Judge again took possession of the warrant and prevented its execution.
Not until January 14, 1975, when Pitts was arrested on unrelated charges in South Dakota, did the Government learn that Pitts was no longer within the jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Illinois. On learning of Pitts's altered geographical status, the Government had the original Northern District of Georgia indictment dismissed. On January 16, 1975, a new complaint was filed and a bench warrant sent to South Dakota. The second Georgia indictment, the third in this sequence, was returned on June 3, 1975. The question of whether Pitts would be tried was finally resolved by the commencement of trial on April 6, 1976, which resulted in his conviction.
Evidence Of Jeopardy
Based on the initial dismissal in the Eastern District of Illinois at the Government's request and the subsequent trial in the Northern District of Georgia for the same offense, Pitts contends that he was placed in jeopardy in violation of the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against double jeopardy. Although until recently double jeopardy jurisprudence was a "morass" in some areas,
Delayed But Speedy
Joined with Pitts' double jeopardy contention is his argument that the two and a half year delay from the date of the first indictment, August 21, 1973, until his conviction in April 1976, violated his right to a speedy trial.
Without a doubt, the two and a half year span is somewhat long for a one count indictment case. However, the weight accorded the length of the delay is diminished by the causes of the delay. It was not due to deliberate Government actions aimed at obtaining trial advantages or any other advantage. One year and two months of the delay resulted directly from the actions of the Eastern District of Illinois Judge impeding execution of the respective bench warrants. An additional five months was necessitated by the workload of the Government prosecutor. Another four and a half months was consumed while the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia waited for other, unrelated criminal proceedings in South Dakota to be consummated. Of greater importance in this asserted delay was the pending prosecution of Pitts on unrelated charges in Illinois and South Dakota.
The length of delay is further counterbalanced by Pitts's failure to assert his right to a speedy trial. United States v. Garza, 5 Cir., 1977, 547 F.2d 1234. Finally, the only prejudice Pitts asserts is the loss of certain alleged receipts for the sale of the cadillac.
Opinions Not Comparisons
Pitts contends that error occurred when the Georgia trial judge refused to allow the attorney handling his Illinois defense, Mr. Laury, to give his opinion on the authenticity of Rosemary Wenke's signature on a purported receipt for the cadillac.
Under F.R.Evid. 901(b)(2), nonexpert testimony concerning the genuineness of handwriting is permitted when ". . . based upon familiarity not acquired for the purposes of the litigation." Mr. Laury acquired any expertise he arguably had for purposes of a pending criminal investigation. Furthermore, he obtained his "familiarity" solely by comparing the signature on the purported car sales receipt to another sample of Mrs. Wenke's signature. Such one-shot comparisons made for purposes of the litigation lack the extent of familiarity contemplated by 901(b)(2). In light of this 901(b)(2) standard and the absence of any other evidentiary predicate that indicated justifiable reliability for this opinion, the trial judge properly excluded Mr. Laury's opinion on the genuineness of Mrs. Wenke's signature.
Pitts's final assertion is that the trial judge improperly quashed a F.R.Crim.P. 17(b) subpoena. Prior to granting the Government's motion to quash, the trial judge (i) ascertained that the desired witness could only testify to the existence of the purported receipt of sale and (ii) offered Pitts's counsel opportunity to make an additional showing under 17(b)'s requirement that the "witness is necessary to an adequate defense." No such showing was attempted. At best, the witness involved could have only partially restated what another witness, Mr. Laury, testified to in greater detail and specificity. Coupled with the cumulative nature of this proposed witness's testimony is the Government's stipulation as to the substance of the witness's knowledge of the receipt.
For the foregoing reasons, we reject all the defendant's asserted errors.
In considering 17(b) subpoena requests, this Court has indicated that the broad discretion which 17(b) vests in trial judges to grant subpoenas on behalf of indigent defendants for witnesses ". . . necessary to an adequate defense . . ." is restricted by the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process of favorable witnesses and the Fifth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable discrimination between those who are financially able to pay a witness's fees and those not able to do so. Welsh v. United States, 5 Cir., 1968, 404 F.2d 414. In Welsh, we set forth a guideline designed to promote these Fifth and Sixth Amendment interests by requiring that
Id. at 417. In applying this standard, we have indicated that the trial judge should exercise his or her discretion in determining the need for the testimony of a witness by weighing many factors, including materiality, relevancy, and competency of the witness's testimony. See United States v. Hathcock, 5 Cir., 1971, 441 F.2d 197, 200. For Pitts, the District Judge utilized these considerations in reassessing the necessity of the witness for an adequate defense. In light of the cumulative nature of the testimony sought, the delay of trial that would have been necessary before the witness could have been made available, and the stipulation regarding the witness's testimony, no abuse of discretion exists. See 8 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 17.05, at 17-15 (2d. ed. 1976).