|
Post by rayozz on Jun 21, 2009 1:26:57 GMT -6
I'd really like to know what constitutes a 'Speedy Trial'.
For example a person charged with murder, has to wait for 12-24 months before his/her trial goes to court.
I understand that, evidence and witnesses etc.
If the person is declared not-guilty, are they compensated?
Rayozz
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Jun 21, 2009 5:15:12 GMT -6
Most waive their right to a speedy trial. But here in WI, I think they can force the trial to begin within a certain time frame depending on whether it is a felony or misdemeanor. However, as it is 6am, I am too lazy to check right now. Again though, most defendants by and large will waive that right. If the prosecution violates the right by not bringing the case in time, the case might be dismissed with prejudice. I do not believe monetary damages would be available. Here is what one quick link says for my state: research.lawyers.com/Wisconsin/Criminal-Process-in-Wisconsin.html"You have a right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which requires that trials be held within a certain time frame after a person has been charged with a crime.
This right can be waived by asking for additional time for the preparation of your defense.
Speedy Trial rights in Wisconsin
If you are charged with a misdemeanor, your trial must begin within 60 days from the date of your initial appearance in court. A misdemeanor is a crime usually punishable by either a fine or a year or less of incarceration.
If you are charged with a felony, your trial must begin within 90 days from the date that trial is demanded by any party either in writing or on the record. A felony is a crime usually punishable by imprisonment for more than one year."
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Jun 21, 2009 5:44:35 GMT -6
6am I guess its too early to offer you guys a beer ;D
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Jun 21, 2009 5:48:40 GMT -6
6am I guess its too early to offer you guys a beer ;D Lol. I just cracked my 3rd brew of the morning ;D
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Jun 21, 2009 5:53:28 GMT -6
Breakfast beer. Hardcore Cheers then Agave
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jun 21, 2009 10:47:33 GMT -6
So what would happen if the state is not ready for a murder trial? Wouldn't that violate the accused's right to a speedy trial?
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Jun 21, 2009 11:41:07 GMT -6
So what would happen if the state is not ready for a murder trial? Wouldn't that violate the accused's right to a speedy trial? The state should not press charges until it is ready to proceed. The right to a speedy trial does not apply for mere investigations. It only applies after the dude has been charged. So the lesson is not to charge a guy prematurely.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jun 21, 2009 23:33:18 GMT -6
So what would happen if the state is not ready for a murder trial? Wouldn't that violate the accused's right to a speedy trial? The state should not press charges until it is ready to proceed. The right to a speedy trial does not apply for mere investigations. It only applies after the dude has been charged. So the lesson is not to charge a guy prematurely. Correct. But let me give you an example: Suppose the state arrests a person but desparately needs to find the murder weapon to support its otherwise circumstancial case. So they plead for more time. Wouldn't that be undue influence on the right to a speedy trial?
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Jun 22, 2009 4:12:14 GMT -6
If you see my Carried to the Chair thread, you'll notice how the murderers were executed less than 10 months after the crime. Thats the way to do it.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jun 22, 2009 19:23:21 GMT -6
If you see my Carried to the Chair thread, you'll notice how the murderers were executed less than 10 months after the crime. Thats the way to do it. That is speed, right there.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jun 23, 2009 6:39:40 GMT -6
So what would happen if the state is not ready for a murder trial? Wouldn't that violate the accused's right to a speedy trial? Generally, the state doesn't bring charges until they're ready to proceed. But that's not really necessary. Defendant's lawyers always "waive time-" because delay almost always favors the defense. Witnesses move away or die, public outrage over a crime dies down, and the defense needs time to prepare a complicated case, as well. The defendant can insist-but they rarely do.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Jun 23, 2009 6:49:05 GMT -6
So what would happen if the state is not ready for a murder trial? Wouldn't that violate the accused's right to a speedy trial? Generally, the state doesn't bring charges until they're ready to proceed. But that's not really necessary. Defendant's lawyers always "waive time-" because delay almost always favors the defense. Witnesses move away or die, public outrage over a crime dies down, and the defense needs time to prepare a complicated case, as well. The defendant can insist-but they rarely do. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jun 23, 2009 21:55:48 GMT -6
So what would happen if the state is not ready for a murder trial? Wouldn't that violate the accused's right to a speedy trial? Generally, the state doesn't bring charges until they're ready to proceed. But that's not really necessary. Defendant's lawyers always "waive time-" because delay almost always favors the defense. Witnesses move away or die, public outrage over a crime dies down, and the defense needs time to prepare a complicated case, as well. The defendant can insist-but they rarely do. Yeah you are correct. Once filed, DA's hate to dismiss a death penalty case because of the negative ink. Thus, they want to be sure they have a solid case before waiving the indictment around. What would happen if the defense insists but the state needs more time?
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Jun 24, 2009 10:48:26 GMT -6
Generally, the state doesn't bring charges until they're ready to proceed. But that's not really necessary. Defendant's lawyers always "waive time-" because delay almost always favors the defense. Witnesses move away or die, public outrage over a crime dies down, and the defense needs time to prepare a complicated case, as well. The defendant can insist-but they rarely do. Yeah you are correct. Once filed, DA's hate to dismiss a death penalty case because of the negative ink. Thus, they want to be sure they have a solid case before waiving the indictment around. What would happen if the defense insists but the state needs more time? Then generally you go to trial anyway. There might be some exceptions such if the defense is dishonest in discovery, but usually it's on if the defendant exercises his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Of course in your example of a murder case, there is nothing wrong with holding the guy on other charges (if the facts justify them) and then charging him with murder later. But I think it would have to be done in good faith.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Jun 24, 2009 10:55:37 GMT -6
Here is one example King:
If a defendant plans to use an alibi defense, that has to be told to the prosecutor before trial. So if a dude exercises his right to a speedy trial but waits until the week before to tell the DA he plans to present an alibi defense, he won't be able to cry foul when his trial gets delayed.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jun 24, 2009 16:01:24 GMT -6
Here is one example King: If a defendant plans to use an alibi defense, that has to be told to the prosecutor before trial. So if a dude exercises his right to a speedy trial but waits until the week before to tell the DA he plans to present an alibi defense, he won't be able to cry foul when his trial gets delayed. Thanks Agave. That is a surprise to me. I wasn't aware the defense had to share anything with the prosecution except for possible witnesses.
|
|