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.

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]

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.

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."). [2]

India

Right to speedy trial is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. [3] There is no automatic legal remedy available to defendants who are denied speedy trials, rendering it difficult to hold judicial officers accountable for violations. [4]

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." [5] Takada case  [ ja ], which had not held a court for 15 years, was dismissed by Supreme Court of Japan according to Article 37. [6] 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." [7]

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.

States may also offer additional speedy trial protections. In June 1776, a "speedy trial" provision was explicitly included in the Virginia Declaration of Rights by George Mason, its principal author.

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. [8] [9]

See also

Related Research Articles

In common law jurisdictions, a preliminary hearing, preliminary examination, preliminary inquiry, evidentiary hearing or probable cause hearing is a proceeding, after a criminal complaint has been filed by the prosecutor, to determine whether there is enough evidence to require a trial. At such a hearing, the defendant may be assisted by a lawyer.

A plea bargain is an agreement in criminal law proceedings, whereby the prosecutor provides a concession to the defendant in exchange for a plea of guilt or nolo contendere. This may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of the several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or it may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a more lenient sentence.

<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 right to silence is a legal principle which guarantees any individual the right to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement officers or court officials. It is a legal right recognized, explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prosecutor</span> Legal profession

A prosecutor is a legal representative of the prosecution in states with either the adversarial system, which is adopted in common law, or inquisitorial system, which is adopted in civil law. The prosecution is the legal party responsible for presenting the case in a criminal trial against the defendant, an individual accused of breaking the law. Typically, the prosecutor represents the state or the government in the case brought against the accused person.

Nolle prosequi, abbreviated nol or nolle pros, is legal Latin meaning "to be unwilling to pursue". It is a type of prosecutorial discretion in common law, used for prosecutors' declarations that they are voluntarily ending a criminal case before trial or before a verdict is rendered; it is a kind of motion to dismiss and contrasts with an involuntary dismissal.

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.

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision on criminal sentencing. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial requires that other than a prior conviction, only facts admitted by a defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury may be used to calculate a sentence exceeding the prescribed statutory maximum sentence, whether the defendant has pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial. The maximum sentence that a judge may impose is based upon the facts admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New York City Criminal Court</span> Court in New York, United States

The Criminal Court of the City of New York is a court of the State Unified Court System in New York City that handles misdemeanors and lesser offenses, and also conducts arraignments and preliminary hearings in felony cases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal justice system of Japan</span>

Within the criminal justice system of Japan, there exist three basic features that characterize its operations. First, the institutions—police, government prosecutors' offices, courts, and correctional organs—maintain close and cooperative relations with each other, consulting frequently on how best to accomplish the shared goals of limiting and controlling crime. Second, citizens are encouraged to assist in maintaining public order, and they participate extensively in crime prevention campaigns, apprehension of suspects, and offender rehabilitation programs. Finally, officials who administer criminal justice are allowed considerable discretion in dealing with offenders.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial system of Turkey</span> National court system of the Republic of Turkey

The judicial system of Turkey is defined by Articles 138 to 160 of the Constitution of Turkey.

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 legal system of South Korea is a civil law system that has its basis in the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. The Court Organization Act, which was passed into law on 26 September 1949, officially created a three-tiered, independent judicial system. The revised Constitution of 1987 codified judicial independence in Article 103, which states that, "Judges rule independently according to their conscience and in conformity with the Constitution and the law." The 1987 rewrite also established the Constitutional Court, the first time that South Korea had an active body for constitutional review.

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

The law of the Republic of China as applied in Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu is based on civil law with its origins in the modern Japanese and German legal systems. The main body of laws are codified into the Six Codes:

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is a provision of the European Convention which protects the right to a fair trial. In criminal law cases and cases to determine civil rights it protects the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within reasonable time, the presumption of innocence, right to silence and other minimum rights for those charged in a criminal case.

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.

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.

<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. Shestokas, David J. (13 November 2014). "Sixth Amendment's Speedy Trial Right: Ancient, Worthy and Elusive". David Shestokas. Retrieved 28 September 2017.
  3. {{Cite web|url=http://alrc.asia/article2/2008/06/2-analysis-of-the-legal-position-in-india-on-speedy-trial-versus-judicial-delay/%7Ctitle=2
  4. "Speedy justice is fundamental right: Madhya Pradesh HC". The Times of India. 2023-11-25. ISSN   0971-8257 . Retrieved 2024-04-20.
  5. "日本国憲法 / The Constitution of Japan". www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp. Retrieved 2020-06-17.
  6. 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. "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)
  7. "Constitution of the Philippines, Article III". Wikisource. Retrieved 28 September 2017.
  8. 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.
  9. 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)