Form 83: Speedy Trial Motion

• Library: Criminal Law Forms (ABA) (2013 Ed.)

Form 83: Speedy Trial Motion

KENNETH VERCAMMEN
& ASSOCIATES, PC
2053 Woodbridge Ave.
Edison, NJ 08817
732-572-0500
Attorney for Defendant d1

State

vs

d1 Defendant

MUNICIPAL COURT OF x1

Summons

Criminal Action
NOTICE OF MOTION to Dismiss for Violation of Speedy Trial

TO: x1 Prosecutor

x1 Municipal Court

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on a date set by the court the undersigned, counsel for the defendant d1, will move before the above court, for an order to Dismiss for Violation of Speedy Trial.

Dated: __________

__________
BY: KENNETH A. VERCAMMEN, ESQ.

Defendant demands a speedy trial pursuant to U.S. Const. Amend. VI and N.J. Const. Art.1, para.10.

CHARGES SHOULD BE DISMISSED IF SPEEDY TRIAL VIOLATED

In a DWI case, State v. Farrell NJ Super (App. Div 1999) a DWI conviction was reversed and case dismissed based on speedy trial violation. The court held: "Excessive delay in completing a prosecution can potentially violate a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial as a matter of fundamental fairness, apart from whether double jeopardy standards have been contravened. Id. at 354-55. In cases arising from municipal court DWI prosecutions, just as with criminal prosecutions, consideration whether the right to a speedy trial has been violated is guided by the four factors announced in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 2192, 33 L. Ed.2d 101, 117-18 (1972). Gallegan, supra, [117 NJ 345, 1989] 117 N.J. at 355; State v. Prickett, 240 N.J. Super. 139, 143 (App. Div. 1990)." Farrell, supra.

Specifically, the court must engage in a multi-element balancing process of the four factors: the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, whether the defendant asserted his right to speedy trial, and any prejudice to the defendant occasioned by the delay. Gallegan, supra, 117 N.J. at 355; State v. Marcus, 294 N.J. Super. 267, 293 (App. Div. 1996), certif. denied, 157 N.J. 543 (1997). State v Farrell NJ supra.

Delay caused or requested by the defendant is not considered to weigh in favor of finding a speedy trial violation. Gallegan, supra, 117 N.J. at 355; Marcus, supra, 294 N.J. Super. at 293. Further, because the evaluative process involves a balancing of considerations, if the other factors weigh heavily enough, a speedy trial violation can be established without an affirmative showing of prejudice to the defendant. See State v. Smith, 131 N.J. Super. 354, 368 n.2 (App. Div. 1974), aff'd o.b., 70 N.J. 213 (1976).

In a related vein, the defendant's...