4 ms·

I was a former public defender, guy. Umm.. thank you for your service? It sounds like you have a bad lawyer, but you're also not understanding what's going on

I was a former public defender, guy. Umm.. thank you for your service? It sounds like you have a bad lawyer, but you're also not understanding what's going on. Well, I'm on my fourth (or fifth? I've lost count), and statistics suggest there must have been a bad one in there somewhere. I think I have a firmer grip than a lot of people. Allow me to demonstrate: The original charges must still be brought to trial within 70 days of the original indictment...unless you (through your lawyer) waived that right. Judges don't keep a running tally of non-tolled days and poll counsel on whether they want to waive their right to a speedy trial. In my particular case, 1006 days passed between original indictment and trial, and while my counsel could have brought an STA/6th amendment motion to dismiss and didn't, I wouldn't quite characterize that as waiving. And judges generally only approve superseding indictments once. Judges don't "approve" indictments on the federal level. Indictments (even superseding ones) come from grand juries. Judging by the number of 8th superseding, 9th superseding, and nth superseding (where n has 2 digits) indictments in a number of cases in the literature, this statement would appear to be provably false. What you just described was the SOL expiring. It had nothing to do with the speedy trial act. But without any cause to dismiss the case, you can be tried and convicted well after the SOL runs, provided you were charged prior. The STA provides the cause.

gamblor956 8y ago
Judges don't keep a running tally of non-tolled days and poll counsel on whether they want to waive their right to a speedy trial. You're right, the judges don't. The judge's law clerk(s) do, as should your own lawyer(s). However, please note that not bringing a speedy trial motion is the same thing as waiving that right. The speedy trial right is an asserted right, meaning that you have to actively pursue it. Courts simply don't have the capacity to grant it to everyone, especially since most people waive it anyway. Judges don't "approve" indictments on the federal level. Indictments (even superseding ones) come from grand juries. Judging by the number of 8th superseding, 9th superseding, and nth superseding (where n has 2 digits) indictments in a number of cases in the literature, this statement would appear to be provably false. Judges absolutely approve or reject superseding indictments once a defendant has been charged. Whether or not the prosecutor chooses to get a dozen superseding indictments before charging or arraigning a defendant is a very different thing. But without any cause to dismiss the case, you can be tried and convicted well after the SOL runs, provided you were charged prior. The STA provides the cause. That's true, but that's not what you're describing. You originally described a prosecutor dismissing charges for some reason, but then not refiling charges before the SOL expires. If the speedy trial right was at issue, the prosecutor would simply ask the defense for a waiver, which the lawyer will usually grant unless there's a reason not to, i.e., client says no or the lawyer is aware the prosecutor has insufficient evidence but given time could acquire it. (The latter will never apply so close to an SOL expiring--if the prosecution doesn't have the evidence after 5/6/7 years, the difference of a few days or weeks won't matter.)

gamblor956 8y ago

Judges don't keep a running tally of non-tolled days and poll counsel on whether they want to waive their right to a speedy trial. You're right, the judges don't. The judge's law clerk(s) do, as should your own lawyer(s). However, please note that not bringing a speedy trial motion is the same thing as waiving that right. The speedy trial right is an asserted right, meaning that you have to actively pursue it. Courts simply don't have the capacity to grant it to everyone, especially since most people waive it anyway. Judges don't "approve" indictments on the federal level. Indictments (even superseding ones) come from grand juries. Judging by the number of 8th superseding, 9th superseding, and nth superseding (where n has 2 digits) indictments in a number of cases in the literature, this statement would appear to be provably false. Judges absolutely approve or reject superseding indictments once a defendant has been charged. Whether or not the prosecutor chooses to get a dozen superseding indictments before charging or arraigning a defendant is a very different thing. But without any cause to dismiss the case, you can be tried and convicted well after the SOL runs, provided you were charged prior. The STA provides the cause. That's true, but that's not what you're describing. You originally described a prosecutor dismissing charges for some reason, but then not refiling charges before the SOL expires. If the speedy trial right was at issue, the prosecutor would simply ask the defense for a waiver, which the lawyer will usually grant unless there's a reason not to, i.e., client says no or the lawyer is aware the prosecutor has insufficient evidence but given time could acquire it. (The latter will never apply so close to an SOL expiring--if the prosecution doesn't have the evidence after 5/6/7 years, the difference of a few days or weeks won't matter.)