Speedy trial

Last updated

In criminal law, the right to a speedy trial is a human right under which it is asserted that a government prosecutor may not delay the trial of a criminal suspect arbitrarily and indefinitely. Otherwise, the power to impose such delays would effectively allow prosecutors to send anyone to jail for an arbitrary length of time without trial, expressed as the maxim Justice delayed is justice denied.

Contents

Although it is important for the protection of speedy trial rights for there to be a court in which a defendant may complain about the unreasonable delay of the trial, it is also important that nations implement structures that avoid the delay. [1]

Jurimetrics allows to estimate the current judicial efficiency. [2] Speedy justice tends to correlate with quality and fairness of justice. [3]

Recognition of speedy trial rights

In jurisdictions with strong rule of law, the requirement of a "speedy trial" forces prosecutors to diligently build cases within a reasonable amount of time commensurate with the complexity and heinousness of the crimes of which suspects are accused. The right is based on the notion that long-term incarceration should normally be restricted to situations in which a judge or jury have determined a suspect has committed a crime.

The right to a speedy trial is codified in fundamental legal documents in several jurisdictions, and may be further defined by statutory law.

Bangladesh

In Bangladesh, the right to a speedy trial is stated in Article 35(3) of the Constitution of Bangladesh, which provides: "Every person accused of a criminal offence" to "have the right to a speedy and public trial by an independent and impartial Court or tribunal established by law". [4] [5]

The Law and Order Disruption (Speedy Trial) Act (2002), aimed to implement this constitutional right. The Act requires that trials for specified offenses be concluded within 120 days, with a possible extension of 60 days if necessary. [6] Speedy Trial Courts, presided over by Judicial or Metropolitan Magistrates, are established under this law to expedite cases. [7] The act was notably used in The State vs. Mehedi Hasan Rasel and Others criminal case. [8]

In 2024, the Act, initially enacted as a temporary measure, was made permanent, drawing criticism from legal experts and rights organizations. [9]

Canada

Speedy trial rights are recognized within Section Eleven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In R v Jordan, the Supreme Court of Canada held that these Charter rights are presumed to have been violated when the trial does not end within 18 months of the charges being filed, or 30 months when there is a preliminary inquiry. When speedy trial rights are violated, the Crown must drop relevant charges by entering a stay of proceedings.

Once the presumptive ceiling is exceeded, the burden is on the Crown to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness on the basis of exceptional circumstances outside the Crown's control.

Europe

Within Europe, speedy trial rights are recognized by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In English law, this right was developed by the Assize of Clarendon in 1166 (a judge would be summoned if one was not immediately available) and Magna Carta in 1215 ("To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice."). [10]

India

The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. [11] There is no automatic legal remedy available to defendants who are denied speedy trials, rendering it difficult to hold judicial officers accountable for violations. [12]

Japan

The Article 37  [ ja ] of the Japanese Constitution states, "In all criminal cases the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial tribunal." [13] Takada case  [ ja ], which had not held a court for 15 years, was dismissed by Supreme Court of Japan according to Article 37. [14] After the Takada case, it is considered that dismissing judge should only apply if the accused ask acceleration of a trial.

Philippines

The Constitution of the Philippines states, "All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies." [15]

United States

In the United States, basic speedy trial rights are protected by the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. For federal charges, the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 applies. The trial must commence within 70 days from the date the information or indictment was filed, or from the date the defendant appears before an officer of the court in which the charge is pending, whichever is later.

The consequences of a speedy trial violation may require that the case be dismissed, although depending upon the circumstances it may be possible for the state to again initiate a criminal charge against a defendant despite a speedy trial violation.

Defendants may waive their right to a speedy trial for the purposes of negotiation. [16] [17]

State Law

States may offer speedy trial protections in addition to federal protections, which can vary significantly from the rights available under the federal Constitution and in federal courts under the Speedy Trial Act. In June 1776, a "speedy trial" provision was explicitly included in the Virginia Declaration of Rights by George Mason, its principal author.

California's right to a speedy trial is different in several ways from the federal right. [18] In California, the right to a speedy trial attaches as soon as a felony complaint is filed (that is, as soon as the criminal action is initiated), while in federal courts, the right attaches at a later point, in the form of a "formal accusation" by indictment or information. [18] In California, dismissal is automatic for a violation of the state statute implementing the state constitutional right to a speedy trial (Penal Code section 1382); no affirmative showing of prejudice is required. [18] However, where there was no statutory violation but there may have been a state constitutional violation, then an affirmative showing of prejudice is required and the trial court can defer evaluation of a motion to dismiss to the end of trial in order to evaluate whether the evidence presented at trial shows that the defendant suffered actual prejudice from the delay. [18] Unlike the federal constitutional right to a speedy trial, California does not treat a "uncommonly long" delay as giving rise to a presumption of prejudice under its state constitutional right to a speedy trial, meaning the defendant must show actual prejudice in the sense that evidence material to his defense was actually lost or damaged as a result of the delay. [18]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury trial</span> Type of legal trial

A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial, in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating rights related to criminal prosecutions

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has applied all but one of this amendment's protections to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...". The Clause protects the defendant from delay between the presentation of the indictment or similar charging instrument and the beginning of trial.

The judiciary of Germany is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in Germany.

A fair trial is a trial which is "conducted fairly, justly, and with procedural regularity by an impartial judge". Various rights associated with a fair trial are explicitly proclaimed in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, in addition to numerous other constitutions and declarations throughout the world. There is no binding international law that defines what is not a fair trial; for example, the right to a jury trial and other important procedures vary from nation to nation.

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically the right of defendants in criminal cases to a speedy trial. The Court held that determinations of whether or not the right to a speedy trial has been violated must be made on a case-by-case basis, and set forth four factors to be considered in the determination.

In American procedural law, a continuance is the postponement of a hearing, trial, or other scheduled court proceeding at the request of either or both parties in the dispute, or by the judge sua sponte. In response to delays in bringing cases to trial, some states have adopted "fast-track" rules that sharply limit the ability of judges to grant continuances. However, a motion for continuance may be granted when necessitated by unforeseeable events, or for other reasonable cause articulated by the movant, especially when the court deems it necessary and prudent in the "interest of justice."

Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects a person's legal rights in criminal and penal matters. There are nine enumerated rights protected in section 11.

The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 establishes time limits for completing the various stages of a federal criminal prosecution in the United States.

A citizen's right to a trial by jury is a central feature of the United States Constitution. It is considered a fundamental principle of the American legal system.

North v. Russell, 427 U.S. 328 (1976), is a United States Supreme Court case which held that a non-lawyer jurist can constitutionally sit in a jail-carrying criminal case provided that the defendant has an opportunity through an appeal to obtain a second trial before a judge who is a lawyer.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States constitutional criminal procedure</span>

The United States Constitution contains several provisions regarding the law of criminal procedure.

The Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution is applicable in state courts as well as federal courts. Jackie Washington had attempted to call his co-defendant as a witness, but was blocked by Texas courts because state law prevented co-defendants from testifying for each other, under the theory that they would be likely to lie for each other on the stand.

Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that defense witnesses can be prevented from testifying under certain circumstances, even if that hurts the defense's case. Taylor was the first case to hold that there is no absolute bar to blocking the testimony of a surprise witness, even if that is an essential witness for the defendant, a limitation of the broad right to present a defense recognized in Washington v. Texas (1967).

Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for noncitizens convicted of illegal entry to or presence in the United States.

Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the Speedy Trial Clause of the United States Constitution in state court proceedings. The Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that in criminal prosecutions "...the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial" In this case, a defendant was tried for trespassing and the initial jury could not reach a verdict. The prosecutor neither dismissed nor reinstated the case but used an unusual procedure to leave it open, potentially indefinitely. Klopfer argued that this denied him his right to a speedy trial. In deciding in his favor, the Supreme Court incorporated the speedy trial protections of the Sixth Amendment against the states.

Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the Sixth Amendment standard for reversing convictions due to ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. The Court ruled that when a lawyer's ineffective assistance leads to the rejection of a plea agreement, a defendant is entitled to relief if the outcome of the plea process would have been different with competent advice. In such cases, the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires the trial judge to exercise discretion to determine an appropriate remedy.

<i>McFarlane v Director of Public Prosecutions</i> Irish Supreme Court case

McFarlane v Director of Public Prosecutions[2008] IESC 7; [2008] 2 I.R. 117 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the right to a fair trial under both Article 38.1 of the Constitution and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights does not preclude prosecution in cases of prosecutorial delay unless the accused can demonstrate either that some specific prejudice resulted or that the delay was well outside the norm for the particular proceedings.

References

  1. ↑ Buonomo, Giampiero (2000). "Equa durata del processo: il risarcimento non risolve il problema". Diritto&Giustizia Edizione Online. Archived from the original on 2012-08-01.[ permanent dead link ]
  2. ↑ Unger, Adriana Jacoto; Neto, José Francisco dos Santos; Fantinato, Marcelo; Peres, Sarajane Marques; Trecenti, Julio; Hirota, Renata (21 June 2021). Process mining-enabled jurimetrics: analysis of a Brazilian court's judicial performance in the business law processing. ACM. pp. 240–244. doi:10.1145/3462757.3466137. ISBN   978-1-4503-8526-8.
  3. ↑ Melcarne, Alessandro; Ramello, Giovanni B.; Spruk, Rok (2021). "Is justice delayed justice denied? An empirical approach". International Review of Law and Economics. 65: 105953. doi:10.1016/j.irle.2020.105953.
  4. ↑ Sakin Tanvir (2021). "Whether Article 35 of the Constitution of Bangladesh Contravenes with Section 53 of the Penal Code". SSRN . Retrieved 23 January 2025.
  5. ↑ Zakir Hossain (28 October 2019). "A faster approach". Dhaka Tribune . Retrieved 23 January 2025.
  6. ↑ "Speedy Trial Act set to become permanent law". The Daily Star . 29 January 2024. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
  7. ↑ UNB (5 March 2024). "Speedy Trial Bill passed in parliament". Dhaka Tribune . Retrieved 23 January 2025.
  8. ↑ "BUET students, others remember Abrar Fahad, demand speedy trial". New Age (Bangladesh) . 18 June 2021. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
  9. ↑ "Bangladesh to make Speedy Trial Act a permanent law". Bdnews24.com . 30 January 2024. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
  10. ↑ Shestokas, David J. (13 November 2014). "Sixth Amendment's Speedy Trial Right: Ancient, Worthy and Elusive". David Shestokas. Retrieved 28 September 2017.
  11. ↑ "Analysis of the legal position in India on speedy trial versus judicial delay". alrc.asia.
  12. ↑ "Speedy justice is fundamental right: Madhya Pradesh HC". The Times of India. 2023-11-25. ISSN   0971-8257 . Retrieved 2024-04-20.
  13. ↑ "日本国憲法 / The Constitution of Japan". www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp. Retrieved 2020-06-17.
  14. ↑ 日本国語大辞典, ブリタニカ国際大百科事典 小項目事典,朝日新聞掲載「キーワード」,デジタル大辞泉,百科事典マイペディア,世界大百科事典 第２版,大辞林 第三版,日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ),精選版 (14 July 2016). "免訴(めんそ)とは". コトバンク (in Japanese). Retrieved 2020-06-17.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  15. ↑ "Constitution of the Philippines, Article III". Wikisource. Retrieved 28 September 2017.
  16. ↑ Francis, Enjoli (4 December 2018). "Teenager who was badly injured after friend pushed her off bridge still 'looking for justice'". ABC News. Retrieved 23 February 2024.
  17. ↑ Strom, Samuel, J.D.; Earhart, Rhonda, Esq. "Right to a Speedy Jury Trial". FindLaw.com. Retrieved 23 February 2024.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  18. 1 2 3 4 5 People v. Martinez , 22 Cal. 4th 750, 94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 381, 996 P.2d 32 (2000).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.