Speedy Trial Rights

Introduction to Speedy Trial

In this section, Ron Wright introduces the concept of speedy trial and explains why it is important. He also discusses the different aspects of speedy trial and the incentives for both the government and the defendant.

The Importance of Speedy Trial

• Justice delayed is justice denied.

• Delay between the time when an alleged crime happens and when charges are filed is usually okay for defendants but not for the government.

• Defendants may want a speedy trial to get rid of the cloud hanging over their head.

Pre-Charge Period

• Statutes of limitations encourage governments to file charges within a certain time frame.

• For certain crimes, there is no statute of limitations.

Post-Charge Period

• The government wants a quicker resolution during this period because it's inconvenient for witnesses to keep coming back to court.

• There is no statute of limitations for murder in most state codes.

Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial

In this section, Ron Wright discusses how speedy trial is protected by both federal and state constitutions. He also explains how courts determine whether a defendant's right to speedy trial has been violated.

Federal Constitution

• The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant's right to a speedy trial in federal criminal cases.

• Courts use a four-part test (length of delay, reason for delay, assertion of right, prejudice caused by delay) to determine if a defendant's right has been violated.

State Constitutions

• Most state constitutions have provisions that protect a defendant's right to speedy trial.

• Courts use a balancing test (length of delay, reason for delay, prejudice caused by delay, and the government's interest in the case) to determine if a defendant's right has been violated.

Remedies for Violations of Speedy Trial

In this section, Ron Wright discusses the remedies available to defendants when their right to speedy trial has been violated.

Dismissal with Prejudice

• This is the most severe remedy and means that the charges are dismissed permanently.

• The court will dismiss with prejudice if it finds that the government intentionally delayed the trial or acted in bad faith.

Dismissal without Prejudice

• This means that the charges can be refiled at a later time.

• The court will dismiss without prejudice if it finds that there was no intentional delay or bad faith on the part of the government.

Other Remedies

• Continuances can be granted to give both parties more time to prepare for trial.

• Defendants can file motions to suppress evidence or dismiss charges based on violations of their right to speedy trial.

Statute of Limitations and Due Process

This section discusses the concept of statute of limitations and due process in criminal cases.

Statute of Limitations

• Statutes of limitations freeze the clock on a crime, allowing the government to charge someone even after many years have passed.

• Some states have no statute of limitations, while others freeze the clock if the crime happens to a minor.

• There is a constitutional limit on this based on due process, where courts will insist on prompt action if it has been too long since the crime was committed.

Due Process Doctrine

• The Marion and Lovasco cases from 1971 and 1977 respectively established that there is a due process doctrine that limits how long the government can wait before bringing charges.

• The court considers whether the delay was caused by legitimate reasons such as waiting for more evidence or an investigation breakthrough, or improper motives such as waiting for key witnesses to die or gaining an unfair advantage.

• Delay caused by improper motives may result in charges being blocked.

Post-Charge Delay

This section discusses post-charge delay in criminal cases.

Barker versus Wingo Test

• The Barker versus Wingo case established a four-factor test that courts use to determine whether there has been too much delay between filing charges and starting trial.

• The first factor is length of delay, which must be enough to be considered serious before other factors are considered.

• Other factors include reason for delay, whether defendant asked for speedy trial, and prejudice suffered by defendant due to delay.

Prejudice and Delay in Criminal Proceedings

This section discusses the factors that determine whether a delay in criminal proceedings is prejudicial to the defendant.

Factors Determining Prejudice

• Four factors are considered when determining prejudice: whether the defendant was stuck in jail pretrial, whether records or evidence deteriorated or disappeared, whether the defendant's ability to put on a defense was hindered, and how difficult it was for the defendant to get a fair trial due to delay.

• The most important factors are prejudice and who caused the delay. Courts will split up periods of delay and assign fault accordingly.

• Different periods of delay are attributed to different parties based on who caused them. The factor can count strongly against either party depending on how much at fault they were.

• It can be difficult to attribute delays caused by external factors like backups at state crime labs. However, typically all delays are attributed to the state government since they fund prosecutors, courtrooms, and crime labs.

Speedy Trial Acts

• Almost all states have some kind of statute that declares a time period within which cases must be processed before dismissal with prejudice occurs.

• Events like motions can freeze or toll the clock during litigation under speedy trial statutes.

• Dismissal with prejudice is the remedy if time runs out under speedy trial acts.

Conclusion

This section concludes by summarizing different methods used to prevent slow proceedings from delaying justice.

Preventing Delay

• Justice delayed is justice denied. Different methods exist for preventing slow proceedings including statutes of limitations, speedy trial acts, due process limits, and pretrial cases.