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. Wingo 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.
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.
