The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution says "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." (http://goo.gl/r1B4Aj)
But that whole "speedy trial" thing seems to mean in some jurisdictions more like "a trial whenever is convenient for the DA and the judge and the general court system to actually hold a trial." At least in this case, which doesn't sound like it's all that exceptional.
Remember: this could be you.
It seems to me the answer is really quite simple. If the courts are too busy to provide speedy trials because they are understaffed, then give them more money. If The People don't want to provide more money, then release people who aren't getting speedy trials and see how fast they'll be willing to pony up.
Originally shared by +Les Jenkins:
Holy shit. This is just one case. How many more people are sitting in jail for years on end waiting for their day in court and not seeing it?
Before the Law
Kalief Browder spent more than a thousand days confined on Rikers Island. Credit Photograph by Zach Gross
The framers presumably never envisioned an environment in which so many prosecutors, judges, and court-appointed defense attorneys would be needed – although in this particular case, it appears that the prosecution was (at best) overwhelmed or (at worst) deliberately delaying the proceedings.
+John E. Bredehoft I suspect that if you asked the framers, "But what of this township, in which there is but one judge but one hundred people arrested each day? How can they have a speedy yet fair trial?" the answer would be, "If there is that much crime, then they must pay for more police, and, further, more judges." If expediency and convenience can trump these particular rights, what rights can they not trump?
My guess is that the prosecution probably was too busy — but didn't prioritize being not busy because he figured the accused would simply take a deal and that would be the end of it.
My take is that New York's "speedy trial" law should not ignore court scheduling delays. I'll betcha the courts, if not the prosecutors, would figure out a way to keep each one week request for postponement from turning into six weeks delay. As it stands, there's no direct cost to anyone concerned except the accused.
Perhaps the easy first step would be to count a six week delay as six weeks. That would get some attention.
+John E. Bredehoft Precisely.