The 6th Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees citizens the right to a speedy trial. This prevents them from being held indefinitely before trial. The Constitution does not give a timeline for what would be considered a speedy trial, but state laws and federal laws like the Speedy Trial Act provide a little more guidance on the matter. These laws all allow for reasonable delays as sometimes there are backlogs in the court system.
Why Do Criminal Defendants Have a Right to a Speedy Trial?
The right to a speedy trial is written into the 6th Amendment of the Constitution. Because the US court system presumes innocence until proven guilty, the law does not want to incarcerate an innocent person for months pending trial. Not everyone is eligible for bail or able to pay the bond.
The right to a speedy trial also preserves the evidence. Witnesses will have the memory of events fresh in their mind and it is easier to track down important evidence.
Legal Right to a Speedy Trial
There are two main laws that detail the right to a speedy trial in California:
- The US Constitution’s 6th Amendment
- The California Constitution Article I Section 15
US Constitution
The 6th Amendment of the Constitution says this about the right to a speedy trial:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
The Constitution does not define what it considers to be the scope of a speedy trial, but the court will often determine a reasonable timeline based on the circumstances. In 1992, the Supreme Court heard the case Doggett v. United States where the defendant had to wait 8.5 years for their trial. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that it was not a reasonable delay and the defendant’s right to a speedy trial was violated.
California Constitution
California law also does not define what it would consider a speedy trial, but it requires that a jury trial be set reasonably quickly after one of the following steps in the criminal process:
-
- The criminal claim is filed
- The defendant is arrested
- The indictment is filed
- A holding order is issued in the preliminary hearing
Why Defendants Might Waive Their Right to a Speedy Trial
In some cases, it may be to the defendant’s advantage to waive their right to a speedy trial. This is because when the court system runs smoothly, the trial date may not give the defense enough time to prepare. There is a lot of legwork that is involved in preparing a criminal defense, such as tracking down evidence and witnesses and preparing arguments and defenses.
The prosecutor will already have spent time preparing the case to see if there is sufficient evidence for the charges, so they have a head start. If the defendant wants to waive their right to a speedy trial, their criminal defense attorney can help them to prepare a written declaration.
Factors Considered In Violations of the Right to a Speedy Trial
With no defined deadline for a speedy trial, the court will use their discretion to examine the circumstances. If the criminal defense lawyer files a claim that the defendant’s right to a speedy trial has been violated, the prosecutor will need to provide a reason for the delay. The judge will review the statements of both parties and make a decision. They will consider the following factors:
- The reason for the delay
- The length of the delay
- If the delay negatively affected the defendant’s case
If the delay did not negatively affect the defendant’s case and it was not excessive, then the judge will allow the delay. However, if the judge finds that the defendant’s right to a speedy trial was in fact violated, they may dismiss the whole case.
Delays that were caused by the actions of the defendant do not violate their right to a speedy trial. For example, if the defendant was formally charged before they were arrested but there were delays because they were evading arrest, then this does not violate their right to a speedy trial.