NCJ Number
58440
Date Published
1978
Length
11 pages
Annotation
DIFFICULTIES, ADVANTAGES, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CHANGE ARISING AFTER ONE YEAR OF OPERATION OF THE 1974 FEDERAL SPEEDY TRIAL ACT ARE ANALYZED IN THIS PAPER. DESCRIPTION OF THE ACT AND SPECIFIC PROVISIONS ARE PRESENTED.
Abstract
WITH THE ENACTMENT OF THE ACT FEDERAL CRIMINAL TRIALS IN U.S. DISTRICT COURTS COULD NO LONGER BE SCHEDULED WITHIN THE LUXURY OF THE FLEXIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL TEST OF BARKER V. WINGO (1972). A BRIEF BACKGROUND TO THE ACT SHOWS THAT CONGRESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT IN IMPLEMENTING THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL DATES BACK TO THE 88TH CONGRESS. THE BASIC STATUTES OF THE ACT DEAL WITH THE TRIAL CALENDAR, TIME LIMITS WHICH ARE TEMPERED BY PROVISIONS IN COMPUTING TIME FOR INDICTMENT, ARRAIGNMENT AND TRIAL; SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR PROMPT DISPOSITION OF CASES FOR DEFENDANTS ALREADY IN PRISON; AND SANCTIONS WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO CARRY OUT THE ACT'S PROVISIONS. A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1977, THE FIRST FULL YEAR OF OPERATION UNDER THE INTERIM TIME LIMITS OF THE ACT, REFLECT A 13.4 PERCENT REDUCTION IN PENDING CRIMINAL CASES AT THE DISTRICT COURT LEVEL. HOWEVER, THE CIVIL CASELOAD INCREASED 9.6 PERCENT TO AN ALL TIME HIGH OF 153,606. ADDITIONAL DATA SHOWS THAT THE INTERIM TIME LIMIT OF 60 DAYS FROM ARREST TO INDICTMENT OR INFORMATION WAS ACHIEVED IN 86 PERCENT OF THE CASES AND 94 PERCENT OF THE DEFENDANTS WERE DISPOSED OF WITHIN 180 DAYS FROM ARRAIGNMENT. HOWEVER, U.S. ATTORNEYS HAVE EXPRESSED DIFFICULTY IN MEETING THE 30-DAY TIME LIMIT FROM ARREST TO INDICTMENT SINCE THEY FEEL THAT THIS LIMIT DOES NOT ALLOW ENOUGH TIME FOR THOROUGH POLICE INVESTIGATIONS OR FOR PROSECUTORS AND GRAND JURIES TO DO AN ADEQUATE JOB. ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS HAVE ARISEN ON OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ACT. IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE UNDERLYING GOALS EMBODIED IN THIS LEGISLATION, IT MUST BE IMPLEMENTED WITH A DEGREE OF FLEXIBILITY. TABLES AND FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (KCP)