The Constitution and Federal Law Provide that a Speedy Trial is in the Public’s Interest and in the Interests of Justice
At the defendant’s initial appearance, and in several television interviews, defense counsel
has suggested that the Speedy Trial Act is intended only to protect the defendant’s rights. See,
e.g., 8/3/23 Hr’g Tr. at 17 (“Of course, the Speedy Trial Act protects a defendant’s rights”); 8/3/23
Fox News, Ingraham Angle (“Speedy trials rights are a defendant’s speedy trial rights. A
citizen’s speedy trial rights. Not the government.” 2 ). Not so. Under both the Sixth
Amendment’s Speedy Trial Clause and the Speedy Trial Act, the right to a timely trial is vested in
the public, not just in the defendant. See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 519 (1972) (“The right
to a speedy trial is generically different from any of the other rights enshrined in the Constitution
for the protection of the accused,” since “there is a societal interest in providing a speedy trial
which exists separate from, and at times in opposition to, the interests of the accused.”); Zedner v.
United States, 547 U.S. 489, 501 (2006) (“[T]he [Speedy Trial] Act was designed not just to benefit
defendants but also to serve the public interest by, among other things, reducing defendants’
opportunity to commit crimes while on pretrial release and preventing extended pretrial delay from
impairing the deterrent effect of punishment.”); United States v. Gambino, 59 F.3d 353, 360 (2d
Cir. 1995) (“[T]he public has as great an interest in a prompt criminal trial as has the defendant.
Certainly, the public is the loser when a criminal trial is not prosecuted expeditiously, as suggested
by the aphorism, ‘justice delayed is justice denied.’”).
You learn something new every day and I guess I am as dumb as a Trump lawyer lol. It’s interesting to me that the entire bill of rights is limitations against the government or protecting individual rights against the government and somehow the 6th amendment works differently but I guess if the courts have said it does, it does.
I guess my general delay thesis goes something like this. We are not very far along at all in the criminal process. At least here in Oklahoma felony cases progress as follows:
-Arraignment WE ARE HERE
-Preliminary Hearing Conference(s) - Typically multiple meetings between the ADA and the defense attorney to work on a potential plea deal. Usually these have several weeks between them.
-Preliminary Discovery - ADAs usually hand over the bare minimum at the PHCs
-Preliminary Hearing - Gets set if no progress gets made at PHCs. Prosecutor must present enough evidence to prove probable cause. Assuming this happens the case is set over for trial and then the real fun begins.
-Discovery/Motion hearings/Pretrial conference
-Trial.
That is a lot to get through in 4 months and they haven’t really even gotten started. Maybe they get the trial in before the election but I can’t imagine how much of a circus this thing will be anyways let alone a couple months before the election. I think they could easily make it to trial in 15 months or whatever but not 4 with the defendant stalling. Then the question is will the judge really put the trial on during the actual Presidential campaign.
The Fulton County grand jury that is hearing the prosecution’s presentation of evidence ahead of potential charges against Donald Trump and others for 2020 election interference appears to be moving faster than initially anticipated.
Former Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan is now testifying today after being told to appear tomorrow initially, a person familiar tells CNN. Duncan is also a CNN contributor.
Earlier, CNN reported another witness, independent journalist George Chidi, who was scheduled for Tuesday will now be coming in on Monday instead.
My sense has always been that federal trials move much quicker (caveat in that I’ve primarily dealt with civil trials). Federal judges seem to set a strict calendar and are very reluctant to budge and/or allow counsel to use delay tactics.
This very well be right and my viewpoint may be jaded having only practiced any criminal defense in a very crowded state court docket where everyone was happy to kick the can down the road over and over because they were overworked.
The two Federal bankruptcy judges I primarily practice in front of have shockingly empty dockets. Your chances at delay would be much less in that situation.
I hope I am wrong here. A multi-week Trump trial would be must see TV imo. Obviously we are all better off if this case can get to trial and hopefully get rid of the guy once and for all. I’m just skeptical.
Well, we’re not finished with Trump until he dies, even if he’s campaigning from jail. As it is now, he could easily win the Republican primary in absentia.
Please define. Just because he’s in prison doesn’t mean he can’t “run” for president.
We’re dealing with some pretty weird situations if he wins, basically historically unprecedented in the US or anywhere else. That said, he couldn’t even beat Biden in 2020. If something happens to Biden, I doubt he could even beat Kamala or whoever. Hell, Hilary would beat him.
This will be 8 years past 2016, and post covid. Trump doesn’t have the numbers he had in 2016, and some republicans and independents actually care about the crimes. Not a lot, but enough to lose him a few more % of an already losing share.
I guess maybe the going thought in the derposphere is that they want the trail to be televised so Trump can reveal all the secrets? Or maybe she’s referring to a Hunter Biden trial? I can’t keep up.
Not really. The gov’t has a public interest in a speedy trial, it does not have a “right” to a speedy trial because it’s representing the people as cactus suggested.
It should be emphasized that there’s no rule that says a convicted felon can’t be President, or even a currently-incarcerated felon.
