skip to Main Content

Rules on speedy trial

The time limit for the right to a speedy trial in the case of a detainee whose presence was obtained while serving a custodial sentence should begin to run from the moment the detainee`s presence at the trial was obtained. Where the prosecutor has improperly delayed reporting a detainee to the detention officer, or where the prosecutor has belatedly attempted to obtain the detainee`s presence at trial instead of presenting a detainee for remand or after receiving a certificate of application, such unreasonable delay periods should also be taken into account in determining whether the time limit has expired. This leaves the situation quite nebulous and is particularly unsatisfactory for people whose understanding of rights is that they are not something that should be left to the whims of government officials to determine how they want. However, the Supreme Court provides only one basis for finding expeditious procedural violations, with federal and state legislatures being allowed to provide additional protections on top of that. In fact, there are additional limitations to the concept of expedited procedure in federal and state laws. To ensure that defendants are not brought to justice without adequate opportunity to prepare, Congress amended the law in 1979 to set a minimum period during which the trial cannot begin. Amendments to the Speedy Trials Act 1979, Pub. L. No. 96-43, Article 3, 93 Stat. 327. Thus, the law stipulates that the trial cannot begin less than 30 days after the first appearance of the accused in court, unless the defendant agrees in writing to an earlier date. 18 U.S.C.

§ 3161(C)(2). In United States v. Rojas-Contreras, 474 U.S. 231 (1985), the Supreme Court held that this 30-day trial preparation phase would not resume with the filing of a substantially similar substitute indictment. Standard 12-1.2 Importance of establishing rules for expeditious proceedings and standards for expeditious resolution of criminal cases The Expeditious Procedure Act does not apply to juvenile criminal proceedings that are subject to their own expeditious proceedings. See 18 U.S.C. § 5036 (proscribed provision of the Juvenile Justice Act). In addition, the Interstate Agreement on Detention (IAD) provides for specific time limits for persons detained in other jurisdictions. See 18 U.S.C. Appendix 2, § 2, Articles III-VI. In such a case, the government must meet the deadlines of the IAD and the Early Trials Act. Each jurisdiction should develop caseflow management procedures and procedures that meet case processing time standards and timeliness requirements.

Policies and procedures should be set out in a comprehensive plan for jurisdictions. Parts of the plan that are directly related to the functioning of a court or other organizational unit involved in handling criminal cases should be included in operational manuals or similar guides that can be used by practitioners. One of the main reasons for the right to a speedy trial is to prevent an accused from being detained for a long period of time, only to be found innocent. If the accused is denied bail or is unable to pay it, he remains in jail until the date of his trial. An innocent citizen should not be asked to spend many months in prison. In addition, the right to an expeditious trial reduces the stress of the accused and allows the defence to collect and present evidence while it is still fresh. A witness may have difficulty remembering the events that led to the charges when several months or more pass before trial. “The constitutional right of an accused to a speedy trial cannot be established by a rigid rule, but can only be determined on an ad hoc basis in which the conduct of the prosecution and that of the accused are balanced.” In addition to the Expeditious Procedure Act, an accused`s right to a speedy trial also has constitutional and legal foundations. The federal limitation period provides a time limit within which charges must be laid.

In addition, Rule 48, Fed. R. Crim. P., gives trial courts discretion to dismiss cases that are not immediately brought before the courts. See Rule 48(b), Fed. R. Crim. P. (Trial court authorization to dismiss the indictment if there are “unnecessary delays” in filing the indictment before a grand jury, filing information, or indicting an accused in court).

A defendant in a criminal case has the right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Although the Constitution does not define an expedited procedure, the Federal Expedited Trials Act and state laws provide guidance on when the law may be violated. In some states, prosecutors have a certain number of days to bring an accused to court after he or she has been charged with an indictment. The prosecution may circumvent the requirement if it can prove a valid reason for delay or if the defendant agrees to waive this right. A violation of the expedited procedure rule means that every conviction and verdict must be quashed, and the charge must be dismissed if the case does not stand trial. The clock usually starts ticking on the right side for a quick trial when the accused is arrested. Or he can start running if the accused is formally charged, if this is done before arrest. However, the clock doesn`t start ticking when law enforcement investigates a person as a suspect, but hasn`t arrested or formally charged them. Since the countdown to arrest can pass, an accused might think that avoiding arrest would be a good strategy if they have already been charged. However, a judge will stop the clock for a period of time when the defendant escapes prosecution. In successive state and federal prosecutions, the rule is that the federal constitutional right to an expeditious trial does not arise until a federal charge is laid against the defendant. Thus, a previous arrest by a state based on the same facts as the subsequent federal indictment does not affect the federal constitutional guarantee.

United States v. Walker, 710 F.2d 1062, 1069 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1005 (1984). What exactly constitutes a “reasonable” period of time is the subject of debate, litigation and legislation. There is not just a simple fixed time limit for what is considered reasonable, and then everything that follows is considered unreasonable. Instead, the current legal framework for what constitutes a “fast-track” process consists of Supreme Court precedents as well as federal and state laws. Forty states and Washington, D.C., have legal rights to a speedy trial, ranging from reciting constitutional law to specifying the exact days or months that can occur before the trial. Both North Dakota and Tennessee declare the right to a speedy trial, which can be interpreted in the same way as constitutional law. Delaware, Oregon and Washington, D.C., allow charges to be dismissed for “unnecessary delay” or failure to commence proceedings “within a reasonable time.” Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia express the deadlines through the court`s terms.

Back To Top