V. State Speedy Trial Provisions
| Library | The Rights of the Accused under the Sixth Amendment (ABA) (2016 Ed.) |
In the state courts, the right to a speedy trial is protected at several levels. The Sixth Amendment still protects the right, as do most state constitutions.151 Similar to the federal system, statutes of limitation function to combat unduly long delays in bringing charges.152 In addition, state rules and state statutes often provide bright line rules to guarantee defendants a speedy trial. These multiple sources often overlap in their protection of the right to speedy trial, creating coextensive rights and protections that will be analyzed the same way. However, in some jurisdictions the protections offered by the state constitutional clause may differ from that of the U.S. Constitution or the state statute, necessitating a separate method of determining violations of the right.153
All states are bound to incorporate the Sixth Amendment's protection of the right to a speedy trial.154 The seminal case, as mentioned earlier, is Klopfer v. North Carolina, where the Supreme Court recognized the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right.155 The Klopfer Court was heavily influenced by the presence of the right throughout history156 and, in particular, its importance at the founding of the nation.157 The decision made reference to the existence of speedy trial protection in all fifty states.158
However, in most states, an accused need not rely on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for protection of the right to speedy trial, as almost every state has written a speedy trial clause into its own state constitution.159 With the exceptions of Nevada and New York, all state constitutions articulate some protection for the right to a speedy trial,160 though the specificity of that language varies from state to state. Some statutes are more vague than others, offering only a general rule that all cases should be heard without delay.161 The vast majority of other states' clauses parallel the language of the Sixth Amendment,162 often including a variation on the phrase "speedy trial."163
In addition to their similar wording, many state constitution speedy trial protections are coextensive with the application of, and the rights offered by, the Sixth Amendment. Consequently, there is no advantage to invoking one constitution's speedy trial clause over the other.164 To promote clarity and predictability, many jurisdictions have stated that any alleged constitutional violation of the speedy trial right will be analyzed in accordance with federal standards.165 Practically speaking, this results in most states applying the four-factor Barker test in the same way as federal courts, in order to determine whether a state constitutional right has been violated.166
Yet exceptions do exist. First, not all states follow Barker perfectly. For example, New York applies its own test, modeled after Barker, but with an additional fifth factor considering the nature of the crime committed.167 A Montana opinion infused several bright line rules into factors of the Barker test.168 Idaho also added a caveat to the Barker test, mandating that defendants be tried within the term following their indictment.169 Second, there are states, such as California, that view their state constitution's speedy trial clause as providing a right different from that of the Sixth Amendment.170 In these states, the state constitutional right may attach at a different time than the Sixth Amendment right, or a different showing may be required to establish a violation.171 Ultimately, dissatisfaction with the case-by-case approach of Barker and the lack of firm, clear timetables in constitutional protection led to legislative actions.172 The federal legislature passed the Speedy Trial Act of 1974,173 and many state legislatures passed similar statutory provisions setting specific time limits to protect the right to a speedy trial.174
To further protect and clarify the speedy trial rights of the Sixth Amendment and most state constitutions, all states have enacted statutes that offer bright line rules to help identify violations of the right.175 These bright line rules are usually in the form of time limits within which a defendant must be brought to trial to avoid violating the statutory speedy trial right. Because of these time limits, statutes tend to be narrower and more definite than state constitutional provisions. The timetables of these statutes vary from state to state, but it is common to require trial within 180 days of the filing of an indictment or information.176 Timetables range from as short as sixty days in several states177 to as long as a year in Arkansas.178
However, states apply various exceptions and special rules to their statutes. For example, some states may have separate timetables depending on whether the defendant is incarcerated,179 or whether the trial is for a felony or a misdemeanor.180 Some states expedite the trial time limit if the defendant makes a specific demand for speedy trial.181 Yet, in virtually all jurisdictions, failing to make a demand for speedy trial will weigh against, or eliminate, the defendant's claim that his right was violated.182 To be sure, "repeated requests for a speedy trial weigh heavily in favor of the accused."183 Texas courts even assert that the longer a defendant waits to make a demand for speedy trial, the more the defendant's inaction will weigh against finding a violation.184
State statutes diverge on the remedy for a violation of the statutory right to a speedy trial. Statutes in some states mandate that upon violation of the right, the charge be dismissed with prejudice so the same charges cannot be refiled.185 In contrast, many states do not require dismissal with prejudice but leave it to the courts' discretion whether the same charges should be allowed to be brought against the defendant again...
To continue reading
Request your trial