NCJ Number
49447
Journal
De Paul Law Review Volume: 22 Dated: (1973) Pages: 839-869
Date Published
1973
Length
31 pages
Annotation
THE HISTORY OF SPEEDY TRIAL IN STATUTORY AND COMMON LAW, THE CONFUSION OF SPEEDY TRIAL WITH DUE PROCESS IN MOST FEDERAL COURT PROCEEDINGS, CAUSES OF TRIAL DELAYS, AND THE COMPUTATION OF TRIAL TIMES ARE ALL DISCUSSED.
Abstract
THE GUARANTEE OF A SPEEDY TRIAL IS FOUND IN FIVE SOURCES IN THE UNITED STATES: THE SIXTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION, STATE STATUTES IMPLEMENTING THE CONSTITUTION, RULES OF COURTS, THE COMMON LAW, AND TO A LESSER EXTENT, THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. THE EVOLUTION FROM COMMON LAW TO STATUTORY GUARANTEES IS BRIEFLY DISCUSSED. DESPITE THESE GUARANTEES, MANY DEFENDANTS ARE DENIED SPEEDY TRIALS DUE TO BOTH PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE DELAYS, PRETRIAL PROCEDURES, LACK OF COURT RESOURCES, AND HEAVY COURT CASELOADS. IT IS A DEBATABLE WHETHER THE COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE LEGISLATURE TO GIVE IT THE RESOURCES IT NEEDS TO ENSURE A SPEEDY TRIAL. IN PENNSYLVANIA SUCH A MANDATE WAS UPHELD BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT. FOUR COURT CRITERIA ARE USED TO DETERMINE WHETHER A DEFENDANT HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL: LENGTH OF DELAY, REASON FOR DELAY, THE DEFENDANT'S ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT, AND PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENDANT. IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF THE DEFENDANT CAUSES THE DELAYS OR DOES NOT INSIST ON HIS RIGHT, HIS CLAIM TO THE RIGHT IS DIMINISHED. AT PRESENT, CONTROVERSY SURROUNDS THE SO-CALLED 'DEMAND-WAIVER DOCTRINE' UNDER WHICH THE ACCUSED MUST DEMAND A SPEEDY TRIAL TO INSURE PRESERVATION OF THE RIGHT. CASES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE CONTROVERSY ARE CITED. ANOTHER ISSUE IS THE BURDEN OF PROOF WHEN THE DEFENDANT CLAIMS THAT THE DELAY IS PREJUDICIAL TO HIS CASE. CASE CITATIONS ON VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE GIVEN. THERE ARE FOUR POINTS AT WHICH THE TIME LAPSE FROM THE START OF PROCEEDINGS TO SENTENCE CAN BE COMPUTED: WHEN THE ALLEGED CRIME IS COMMITTED, WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DECIDES TO PROSECUTE AND HAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO PROCEED, WHEN A DEFENDANT IS ARRESTED, AND WHEN HE IS FORMALLY CHARGED WITH A CRIME. IN U.S. VERSUS MARION THE SUPERME COURT CLEARLY HELD THAT TRIAL TIME DOES NOT INCLUDE PREPROSECUTION DELAY. HOWEVER, THE ACCUSED HAS RIGHT TO COUNSEL DURING THE PREPROSECUTION PERIOD. MOST DECISIONS HOLD THAT THE TRIAL PERIOD BEGINS AT THE TIME OF ARREST. IT IS GENERALLY HELD THAT TIME IN JAIL BEFORE FORMAL CHARGES ARE FILED SHOULD BE COMPUTED. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE SPEEDY TRIAL GUARANTEE IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE PRESERVATION OF RESPECT FOR THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. THE ARTICLE IS HEAVILY FOOTNOTED. (GLR)