5 ms·
More realistically, that chief public defender would be fired or harassed out of office within days. It's probably unconstitutional for them to refuse plea dea
by thebooktocome 6y ago
More realistically, that chief public defender would be fired or harassed out of office within days.
It's probably unconstitutional for them to refuse plea deals en masse if it creates a massive violation of one's right to a speedy trial.
- djoldman 6y agoI'm not a lawyer but as far as I know it's the duty of the courts to provide for a speedy trial. And all the chief defender need do is state that in their opinion, plea deals are not fair and that they would not be taking any. If the courts couldn't keep up, then that's their problem. If the government wants to bring in more judges and prosecutors, that's its perogative.
- thebooktocome 6y agoI think you underestimate the forces arrayed against this hypothetical chief public defender.
- djoldman 6y agoPerhaps. But in some jurisdictions, there are so many defendants that they don't have enough courtrooms to run trials 24/7 to get them done in 70 days.
- giantg2 6y agoSpeedy trial can vary from state to state. If not in custody, PA considers anything under 4 or 5 years from the charge being brought to be speedy.
- SilasX 6y agoThat feels like a non-standard usage of “speedy”, even accounting for linguistic drift since 1789.
- thaumasiotes 6y agoNot really. All such descriptors are standardly applied in a comparative manner - it is normal to describe a snail as "speedy" if it's faster than other snails, regardless of whether it's faster than other centipedes. But that purely linguistic analysis only tells you that "speedy trial" has no objective meaning, which can't be the intent of the phrase. The right to a "speedy trial" was supposed to ensure that trials occur speedily relative to some context which is now lost.
- giantg2 6y agoNot really. Rules of statutory construction generally say that you need to use a definition from the dictionary if it's not defined in the statute. Webster's basically says without delay. However, it's somewhat ambiguous. The principle of lenity is supposed to interpret ambiguity in favor of the defendant... it rarely happens.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago> Webster's basically says without delay. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speedy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speedy The entire gloss is "marked by swiftness of motion or action. Also: prompt sense 2". Prompt 2 is "performed readily or immediately". We can reasonably interpret "immediately" as "without delay", but we then run into the problem that that is explicitly one of two options.
- giantg2 6y agoSorry, DDG showed a definition. The link under it was from Webster's.
- thaumasiotes 6y agoThe definition DDG shows is also "characterized by rapid motion; swift".
- markdown 6y agoPutting your life in limbo for 5 years is madness. How do you accept such a thing? Land of the free indeed. SMH.
- djoldman 6y agoThe right to a speedy trial is provided for in the sixth amendment. It controls across all states.
- giantg2 6y agoBut it's not defined. States make their own determination, to a degree. The limit for in-cusutody is pretty low and close to 60 days (don't know the case law). Noncustodial prosecution can last years.
- djoldman 6y agoWithin 70 days or so is pretty average as far as I know. I think we're most concerned with defendants in custody.
- antattack 6y agoApparently in NY it's less than 6 years[1] or life[2]: [1]"New York top court clears man held six years at Rikers Island without trial" https://cn.reuters.com/article/instant-article/idUSKCN1FZ2YZ https://cn.reuters.com/article/instant-article/idUSKCN1FZ2YZ [2]"Browder tragically ended his life in 2015 after suffering beatings, two years of solitary confinement, and egregious conditions during the three years he was incarcerated on Rikers Island—all because of a baseless accusation that he stole a backpack. " https://www.nyclu.org/en/news/new-york-may-finally-do-something-help-prevent-what-happened-kalief-browder https://www.nyclu.org/en/news/new-york-may-finally-do-someth...
- djoldman 6y agoIn cases where you see people in jail for years it's because the defendant has waived their right to a speedy trial until they are next in court. Every time they go to court, they waive their right to a speedy trial until the next time they're in court. If they didn't, the judge would set a trial date for within a short period of time (less than 70 days). In practice, defendants will waive dates to fit into the judge's calendar.
- alasdair_ 6y agoThe Browder case is appalling. For those claiming it was the fault of the defendant for waiving their right to a speedy trial, look at the “trial” section here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalief_Browder https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalief_Browder Over and over the prosecution was not ready and over and over the judge allowed it.
- m463 6y agoI think there's also a case-load angle here. Don't public defenders usually have hundreds of active cases?