NCJ Number
57989
Journal
American Journal of Criminal Law Volume: 7 Issue: 1 Dated: (MARCH 1979) Pages: 23-46
Date Published
1979
Length
24 pages
Annotation
CONFLICTS WHICH MAY ARISE UNDER THE TEXAS SPEEDY TRIAL ACT ARE EXAMINED, AND RESOLUTIONS TO SOME OF THE PROBLEMS ARE OFFERRED IN THIS LAW JOURNAL ARTICLE.
Abstract
IN DETERMINING WHETHER A DELAY AFTER ARREST HAS VIOLATED A DEFENDANT'S 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS ARTICULATED A BALANCING TEST. FROM THE DECISION IN BARKER V. WINGO (1972), COURTS MUST LOOK AT THE LENGTH OF THE DELAY, THE REASON FOR THE DELAY, THE DEFENDANT'S ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT, AND PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENDANT. UNDER THE TEXAS SPEEDY TRIAL ACT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF A SHOWING OF PREJUDICE, AND ALTHOUGH A MOTION FOR DISCHARGE MUST BE MADE BEFORE TRIAL, THE INTERVAL WHICH WILL SHIFT TO THE PROSECUTOR THE BURDEN JUSTIFYING THE DELAY IS MUCH SHORTER THAN THE CONSTITUTIONAL THRESHOLD OF 1 YEAR. ALL FELONIES MUST BE BROUGHT TO TRIAL WITHIN 120 DAYS OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL ACTION. IF A MISDEMEANOR IS PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT FOR MORE THAN 180 DAYS, THE STATE MUST BE READY WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PROSECUTION; IF THE PUNISHMENT IS LESS THAN 180 DAYS THE STATE HAS ONLY 60 DAYS TO PREPARE. IF THE OFFENSE IS PUNISHABLE BY FINE ONLY, THE PROSECUTOR HAS A 30 DAY PERIOD TO BRING ACTION. THE LAW IS INTENDED NOT ONLY TO PROTECT DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS, BUT ALSO TO REDUCE THE PROBLEM OF OVERCROWDED JAILS. PROBLEMS WITH THE STATUTE CENTER AROUND THE NUMEROUS EXCEPTIONS TO THE TIME LIMITS, INCLUDING REASONABLE DELAYS WHILE THE STATE OBTAINS EVIDENCE. ALTHOUGH THERE ARE WAYS FOR COURTS TO EXCLUDE TOO MUCH TIME, AND FOR PROSECUTORS TO SEEK UNJUSTIFIED EXCLUSIONS, THIS STATUTE SHOULD ENCOURAGE A MORE REASONALBE FLOW OF CASES. APPENDED MATERIALS INCLUDE THE FORM FOR DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DISCHARGE UNDER THE ACT. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (TWK).