3 ms·
There are many cases of defendants' right to a speedy trial being trampled. I'm not completely convinced this is a particularly great example of that. He was a
by gok 9y ago
There are many cases of defendants' right to a speedy trial being trampled. I'm not completely convinced this is a particularly great example of that.
He was arrested while on parole, which is why he didn't get out on bail. Many of the delays came from his side. If it had gone to trial, the prosecution would have only had to prove he was guilty by a preponderance of the evidence. So the long time in detention could have just been a strategy.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> Many of the delays came from his side. If it had gone to trial, the prosecution would have only had to prove he was guilty by a preponderance of the evidence No, that would be true if it was just revoking parole on the prior charge (it's kind of odd that that didn't happen, but it's possible that the original sentence ended to soon after the arrest to bother), but this was a new criminal charge which would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
- gok 9y agoYou’re right
- nebulous1 9y agoIt seems pretty unfair to reset the time limit when they dropped the original charges and recharged him the next day (the article is unclear on what the charges were, and how they differed if they differed at all) Same for giving a whole new two years after Hurricane Issac. At some point, particularly for non-violent charges, surely they should have to at least release him until the trial.
- tyingq 9y agoI don't see any case where 8 years feels like due process though. The pipeline is based on plea bargains. Wanting a trial shouldn't take 8 years, ever.
- TheCoelacanth 9y agoAlso doesn't feel like the "speedy trial" that he is constitutionally guaranteed.