1. Length of Delay: A delay of a year or more from the date on which the speedy trial right "attaches" (the date of arrest or indictment, whichever first occurs) was termed "presumptively prejudicial", but the Court has never explicitly ruled that any absolute time limit applies.
2. Reason for the delay: The prosecution may not excessively delay the trial for its own advantage, but a trial may be delayed to secure the presence of an absent witness or other practical considerations.
3. Time and manner in which the defendant has asserted his right: If a defendant acquiesces to the delay when it works to his own benefit, he cannot later claim that he has been unduly delayed.
4. Degree of prejudice to the defendant which the delay has caused.
but I also know there is NO statute of limitations on murder either.
disclaimer: Canadian law student
Constitutions are pretty vague and open-ended. As a result, it's up to the courts to fill in the gaps created by the original drafters. The courts must define and explain, for example, what a right to a speedy trial is and determine the specific test for determining whether that right has been violated. The US Supreme Court developed such a test in Barker v. WingoQuote1. Length of Delay: A delay of a year or more from the date on which the speedy trial right "attaches" (the date of arrest or indictment, whichever first occurs) was termed "presumptively prejudicial", but the Court has never explicitly ruled that any absolute time limit applies.
2. Reason for the delay: The prosecution may not excessively delay the trial for its own advantage, but a trial may be delayed to secure the presence of an absent witness or other practical considerations.
3. Time and manner in which the defendant has asserted his right: If a defendant acquiesces to the delay when it works to his own benefit, he cannot later claim that he has been unduly delayed.
4. Degree of prejudice to the defendant which the delay has caused.
In this case, the delay was over a year, the delay was strictly for the benefit of the prosecution, and it prejudiced the defendant's case. Clearly, the defendant is not acquiescing to the delay. consequently, her constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated.
When this right has been violated, According to the Supreme Court in Strunk v. United States, the judge must dismiss the case or, if a conviction has been reached, it must be overturned. The judge in this case was bound by a higher court.
This is no mere technicality. The right to a speedy criminal trial is a fundamental right protecting us from malicious state prosecution. Prosecutors should know the law and should know that they can't endlessly delay a trial for their own benefit.
disclaimer: Canadian law student
Constitutions are pretty vague and open-ended. As a result, it's up to the courts to fill in the gaps created by the original drafters. The courts must define and explain, for example, what a right to a speedy trial is and determine the specific test for determining whether that right has been violated. The US Supreme Court developed such a test in Barker v. WingoQuote1. Length of Delay: A delay of a year or more from the date on which the speedy trial right "attaches" (the date of arrest or indictment, whichever first occurs) was termed "presumptively prejudicial", but the Court has never explicitly ruled that any absolute time limit applies.
2. Reason for the delay: The prosecution may not excessively delay the trial for its own advantage, but a trial may be delayed to secure the presence of an absent witness or other practical considerations.
3. Time and manner in which the defendant has asserted his right: If a defendant acquiesces to the delay when it works to his own benefit, he cannot later claim that he has been unduly delayed.
4. Degree of prejudice to the defendant which the delay has caused.
In this case, the delay was over a year, the delay was strictly for the benefit of the prosecution, and it prejudiced the defendant's case. Clearly, the defendant is not acquiescing to the delay. consequently, her constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated.
When this right has been violated, According to the Supreme Court in Strunk v. United States, the judge must dismiss the case or, if a conviction has been reached, it must be overturned. The judge in this case was bound by a higher court.
This is no mere technicality. The right to a speedy criminal trial is a fundamental right protecting us from malicious state prosecution. Prosecutors should know the law and should know that they can't endlessly delay a trial for their own benefit.
Okay, so it's not "stupid", but it's still a technicality. Unless something changes, she's scott free because someone at the prosecutor's office didn't send the evidence to the defense when they were supposed to and had nothing to do with whether or not the evidence proved her guilty or innocent.
disclaimer: Canadian law student
Constitutions are pretty vague and open-ended. As a result, it's up to the courts to fill in the gaps created by the original drafters. The courts must define and explain, for example, what a right to a speedy trial is and determine the specific test for determining whether that right has been violated. The US Supreme Court developed such a test in Barker v. WingoQuote1. Length of Delay: A delay of a year or more from the date on which the speedy trial right "attaches" (the date of arrest or indictment, whichever first occurs) was termed "presumptively prejudicial", but the Court has never explicitly ruled that any absolute time limit applies.
2. Reason for the delay: The prosecution may not excessively delay the trial for its own advantage, but a trial may be delayed to secure the presence of an absent witness or other practical considerations.
3. Time and manner in which the defendant has asserted his right: If a defendant acquiesces to the delay when it works to his own benefit, he cannot later claim that he has been unduly delayed.
4. Degree of prejudice to the defendant which the delay has caused.
In this case, the delay was over a year, the delay was strictly for the benefit of the prosecution, and it prejudiced the defendant's case. Clearly, the defendant is not acquiescing to the delay. consequently, her constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated.
When this right has been violated, According to the Supreme Court in Strunk v. United States, the judge must dismiss the case or, if a conviction has been reached, it must be overturned. The judge in this case was bound by a higher court.
This is no mere technicality. The right to a speedy criminal trial is a fundamental right protecting us from malicious state prosecution. Prosecutors should know the law and should know that they can't endlessly delay a trial for their own benefit.
Okay, so it's not "stupid", but it's still a technicality. Unless something changes, she's scott free because someone at the prosecutor's office didn't send the evidence to the defense when they were supposed to and had nothing to do with whether or not the evidence proved her guilty or innocent.
It's not based on a technicality because the judge was satisfied that all four parts of the speedy trial violation test, which I quoted above, were met. This means that the delay was not caused by a technicality, but purposely caused by the prosecution in order to create an advantage for its side and to prejudice the defendant's case. Can you not see why you'd want prosecutors prevented form excessively delaying a case simply to improve its odds? If they have a case, proceed. If they don't, they shouldn't file charges and then wait until they have an advantage.
Well, they dropped charges before so they could try and collect more evidence. Then the woman was found guilty of tampering with evidence later. Then they said they had found more/new evidence. Then apparently someone screwed up and didn't send the data over soon enough or it took that long to get all the evidence together, so the defense asked for more time so they could review, then claimed the speedy trial issue, which was accepted by the judge. I understand why it happened, but doesn't mean I have to like it.
But I understand why that right is there and agree that right should be there.
by the by, here's my card:
(http://break.o1.bitgravity.com/break/holytaco/www/sites/default/files/need_a_lawyer.jpg)
Malek is right, I know because I have completed more law school than he has... for now.