Chicago Drug Suspect Seeks Dismissal After 14-Month Delay in Green Bay Case

A suspect in one of Wisconsin’s largest drug trafficking investigations is taking his case to the state’s highest criminal appeals court, arguing that a 14-month delay in appointing him legal counsel violated his constitutional rights and that his charges should be dismissed. James Grandberry, accused of operating a major Chicago-to-Green Bay drug ring, faces 14 counts, including manufacturing and delivering fentanyl, amphetamines, and cocaine. His case has drawn national attention to systemic delays in Wisconsin’s public defender system and raised questions about whether defendants’ Sixth Amendment rights are being upheld.

Grandberry was arrested on July 11, 2024, and charged shortly thereafter. Prosecutors have described the case as the state’s first wiretap investigation targeting a fentanyl trafficking network, with at least 47 individuals facing related charges. Despite his arrest, Grandberry spent more than a year without an attorney or a preliminary hearing—a proceeding that is typically scheduled within 10 days of arrest. His preliminary hearing was postponed 10 times before an attorney was finally appointed. After a judge denied his motion to dismiss the charges, Grandberry filed an interlocutory appeal, a rare procedural step that allows him to ask the Wisconsin Court of Appeals to rule on his dismissal request while his case is still pending.

At the heart of Grandberry’s appeal is the argument that his prolonged detention without counsel violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and effective assistance of counsel. The case builds on a 2025 ruling involving Nhia Lee, another defendant who was held for 113 days without a preliminary hearing. In that case, charges were ultimately dismissed, but prosecutors were allowed to refile them. Grandberry’s legal team argues that such a precedent is insufficient and that the state’s failure to provide timely legal representation demands a stronger remedy: dismissal of all charges with prejudice, preventing prosecutors from refiling.

Grandberry’s attorney, Joseph Bugni, emphasized in court filings that the delays are not unique to his client’s case but reflect a statewide crisis. “The problems underlying this case are not unique to James Grandberry,” Bugni wrote. “They are repeated throughout the State—every day and in every county. Thankfully, James Grandberry was able to get a pencil and scribble out his persistent pleas for counsel. It’s because of him, sitting alone in a jail cell, demanding what the Constitution promises him, that this Court has the opportunity to craft a rule that will ensure that this same problem is never repeated.”

In a “friend of the court” brief, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) echoed this sentiment, urging the court to dismiss Grandberry’s charges with prejudice. The brief argues that the state’s policy failures—including underfunding of public defender offices—should not be borne by defendants. “Only dismissal with prejudice accomplishes something useful,” wrote NACDL attorney George Burnett. “It tells all that egregious violations of due process beget serious consequences.” The Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the State Public Defender’s Office are also expected to file supportive briefs.

The Attorney General’s office, however, has argued that while procedural errors occurred, dismissing the charges would set a dangerous precedent. In its March brief, the office stated that the courts should not create rules allowing charges to be routinely dismissed due to delays in appointing counsel. The state’s position reflects a broader debate about how to balance defendants’ rights with the practical challenges of managing public defender caseloads in a resource-constrained environment.

Oral arguments in the case are not scheduled, and a decision from the Court of Appeals could take several months. If the court rules in Grandberry’s favor, it could have far-reaching implications for defendants across Wisconsin who have faced similar delays. Legal experts and advocacy groups are watching closely, as the outcome may influence how courts handle cases involving prolonged detention without counsel in the future.

Grandberry’s next court appearance is scheduled for June 22, 2026, for a status conference. No trial date has been set, and the interlocutory appeal remains the central focus of his defense strategy.