4 ms·

> Just like how the right to a “speedy” trial somehow allows them to be delayed for over a year. Generally, when trials take a very long time to happen, it's b

by mlyle 4y ago

> Just like how the right to a “speedy” trial somehow allows them to be delayed for over a year. Generally, when trials take a very long time to happen, it's because the defendant has decided it is in their interest to waive the right to a speedy trial.

leephillips 4y ago
And if they don’t waive, it’s still on the order of months in most jurisdictions, isn’t it? That’s not speedy.
- mlyle 4y ago
  IMO-- A few months to arraign, exchange evidence, make procedural rulings before trial, etc, isn't unreasonable.
  - leephillips 4y ago
    I realize this is the predominant view, but it never made sense to me. I think we’ve just grown accustomed to it. The Constitution doesn’t say “prompt”, it says “speedy”. I’m sure those without the ability to pay pail, or who are denied bail, don’t regard their few months in the US’s notoriously dangerous jails as reasonable.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      I think the bigger problem here is bail and pretrial detention, and that's what should get fixed instead of trying to ram trials through quickly. (Yes, the timeframe is longer than it was in the 18th century, but trials have also gotten more complex: mostly in ways that benefit defendants).
  - femiagbabiaka 4y ago
    I agree, except that it’s a long time to be in jail, especially in some of the larger counties in and around cities in the U.S.. Fatally long, in some cases. EDIT: Nevermind, I see that you addressed this down thread.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > And if they don’t waive, it’s still on the order of months in most jurisdictions, isn’t it? That’s not speedy. Shorter would compromise the defense, who has less warning of the need to prepare for trial (that's why in the federal system, the defense, in addition to having a waivable statutory right for trial to start within 70 days of charging, also has a waivable statutory right for it to not start less than 30 days from charging.) And it is speedy compared to the problems which motivated the guarantee.
dontcare007 4y ago
I'm sure all the Jan 6 protestor have waved their right to a speedy trial...
LanceH 4y ago
In the context of civil asset forfeiture, it is not uncommon for the state to drag it out and make it not worth reclaiming the money.
- mlyle 4y ago
  Here in this subthread, we're talking about the right to a speedy criminal trial. Speedy civil trials are not a constitutional right. (Though, when it comes to forfeiture, the long timelines are one of many problematic aspects).
  - Retric 4y ago
    These forfeiture trials are criminal trials. If the government is suing over a breech of contract or something that’s a civil matter, but when the government is acting with powers outside of those of a normal citizen it’s a criminal trial in everything but name. So it’s doubly troubling as they are also ignoring the presumption of innocence and other such protections.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      > These forfeiture trials are criminal trials. These forfeiture trials are not criminal trials. There are plenty of ways you can be civilly liable without breach of contract. I do think the standard should be higher than a typical civil case (beyond preponderance of the evidence). But this artifact of law has a reason to exist: if there's stuff that's most likely involved in a crime with no identifiable owner, it makes sense for it to be seized. Especially the original case of distant and difficult to identify ship owners. (Once an owner can be identified, I do think there should be greater protections-- deriving from the fourth, not the sixth, amendment.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - Retric 4y ago
        We both agree with what’s going on and that it’s wrong. I am saying the court system is misclassifying criminal cases as civil ones. You want to increase the standard of evidence which IMO means roughly the same thing. But, I can see why you might disagree.
yonaguska 4y ago
Ummm, Gitmo? J6 detainees? And countless other stories of young black men being held without trials to their own detriment.
- mlyle 4y ago
  > Ummm, Gitmo? Umm, Gitmo was messed up. But, to be clear, the United States does not guarantee constitutional rights to non-citizens who have not touched US soil, so this is a bit of a canard. > J6 detainees? Despite rumors of hundreds of January 6th detainees languishing in jails-- the actual number is approximately 35. Most of these have waived speedy trial. Most of these have not been detained for a very long time. A few are still undergoing legal discovery. It's a problematic set of circumstances: further, closely related arrests happen; without providing additional information on the new arrests to existing arrestees' counsel, convictions could later be set aside. In turn, this restarts some clocks. On the other hand, judges are getting frustrated and warning the prosecution that these delays are becoming excessive.
  - adolph 4y ago
  - jessaustin 4y ago
    the United States does not guarantee constitutional rights to non-citizens who have not touched US soil I can't find this detail in my copy of the constitution. 6A in particular specifies "the accused". It's true that most Gitmo prisoners were never actually accused of anything (because they had never done anything, in particular anything related to actions undertaken by Saudi nationals under the direction of Saudi intelligence personnel), and were eventually released without apology. However, any prisoner who ever actually went to trial would certainly be classified as "accused".
Retric 4y ago
The problem here is not generally but rather those cases where people haven’t waved their rights.
- mlyle 4y ago
  I'm saying most of the cases where people are held up as "detained for ____ days without trial", they have waived right to speedy trial. The overwhelming majority of defendants not waiving speedy trials get a trial within a year. Of the remaining, there's a big share that are various kinds of edge cases where it makes sense that a trial has taken a little longer than normal. And then there's the remaining abuses and problems, which are relatively small in number but should be addressed.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 4y ago
    Look even waiting 3 months is already a failure of the speedy requirement. Saying well 1 year is too long but edge cases isn’t a minor issue… No anyone ever hitting 1 year is clear evidence of total failure of the system to even pretend to care about this issue.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      > Look even waiting 3 months is already a failure of the speedy requirement. 3-4 months to get a criminal case together, with discovery requirements, etc, seems reasonable. > No anyone ever hitting 1 year is clear evidence of total failure of the system to even pretend to care about this issue. I don't agree. Terrible stuff happens occasionally-- it is not evidence that every element of the system is broken everywhere. IMO the big issue is bail and pre-trial detention. Yes, criminal cases being in limbo is bad (and the constitutional right of speedy trial is important)-- but a lot of the reason why they take longer now than in the 18th century is because of additional protections for defendants.

by mlyle 4y ago

leephillips 4y ago

And if they don’t waive, it’s still on the order of months in most jurisdictions, isn’t it? That’s not speedy.

mlyle 4y ago
IMO-- A few months to arraign, exchange evidence, make procedural rulings before trial, etc, isn't unreasonable.
- leephillips 4y ago
  I realize this is the predominant view, but it never made sense to me. I think we’ve just grown accustomed to it. The Constitution doesn’t say “prompt”, it says “speedy”. I’m sure those without the ability to pay pail, or who are denied bail, don’t regard their few months in the US’s notoriously dangerous jails as reasonable.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    I think the bigger problem here is bail and pretrial detention, and that's what should get fixed instead of trying to ram trials through quickly. (Yes, the timeframe is longer than it was in the 18th century, but trials have also gotten more complex: mostly in ways that benefit defendants).
- femiagbabiaka 4y ago
  I agree, except that it’s a long time to be in jail, especially in some of the larger counties in and around cities in the U.S.. Fatally long, in some cases. EDIT: Nevermind, I see that you addressed this down thread.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> And if they don’t waive, it’s still on the order of months in most jurisdictions, isn’t it? That’s not speedy. Shorter would compromise the defense, who has less warning of the need to prepare for trial (that's why in the federal system, the defense, in addition to having a waivable statutory right for trial to start within 70 days of charging, also has a waivable statutory right for it to not start less than 30 days from charging.) And it is speedy compared to the problems which motivated the guarantee.

dontcare007 4y ago

I'm sure all the Jan 6 protestor have waved their right to a speedy trial...

LanceH 4y ago

In the context of civil asset forfeiture, it is not uncommon for the state to drag it out and make it not worth reclaiming the money.

mlyle 4y ago
Here in this subthread, we're talking about the right to a speedy criminal trial. Speedy civil trials are not a constitutional right. (Though, when it comes to forfeiture, the long timelines are one of many problematic aspects).
- Retric 4y ago
  These forfeiture trials are criminal trials. If the government is suing over a breech of contract or something that’s a civil matter, but when the government is acting with powers outside of those of a normal citizen it’s a criminal trial in everything but name. So it’s doubly troubling as they are also ignoring the presumption of innocence and other such protections.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > These forfeiture trials are criminal trials. These forfeiture trials are not criminal trials. There are plenty of ways you can be civilly liable without breach of contract. I do think the standard should be higher than a typical civil case (beyond preponderance of the evidence). But this artifact of law has a reason to exist: if there's stuff that's most likely involved in a crime with no identifiable owner, it makes sense for it to be seized. Especially the original case of distant and difficult to identify ship owners. (Once an owner can be identified, I do think there should be greater protections-- deriving from the fourth, not the sixth, amendment.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - Retric 4y ago
      We both agree with what’s going on and that it’s wrong. I am saying the court system is misclassifying criminal cases as civil ones. You want to increase the standard of evidence which IMO means roughly the same thing. But, I can see why you might disagree.

yonaguska 4y ago

Ummm, Gitmo? J6 detainees? And countless other stories of young black men being held without trials to their own detriment.

mlyle 4y ago
> Ummm, Gitmo? Umm, Gitmo was messed up. But, to be clear, the United States does not guarantee constitutional rights to non-citizens who have not touched US soil, so this is a bit of a canard. > J6 detainees? Despite rumors of hundreds of January 6th detainees languishing in jails-- the actual number is approximately 35. Most of these have waived speedy trial. Most of these have not been detained for a very long time. A few are still undergoing legal discovery. It's a problematic set of circumstances: further, closely related arrests happen; without providing additional information on the new arrests to existing arrestees' counsel, convictions could later be set aside. In turn, this restarts some clocks. On the other hand, judges are getting frustrated and warning the prosecution that these delays are becoming excessive.
- adolph 4y ago
- jessaustin 4y ago
  the United States does not guarantee constitutional rights to non-citizens who have not touched US soil I can't find this detail in my copy of the constitution. 6A in particular specifies "the accused". It's true that most Gitmo prisoners were never actually accused of anything (because they had never done anything, in particular anything related to actions undertaken by Saudi nationals under the direction of Saudi intelligence personnel), and were eventually released without apology. However, any prisoner who ever actually went to trial would certainly be classified as "accused".

Retric 4y ago

The problem here is not generally but rather those cases where people haven’t waved their rights.

mlyle 4y ago
I'm saying most of the cases where people are held up as "detained for ____ days without trial", they have waived right to speedy trial. The overwhelming majority of defendants not waiving speedy trials get a trial within a year. Of the remaining, there's a big share that are various kinds of edge cases where it makes sense that a trial has taken a little longer than normal. And then there's the remaining abuses and problems, which are relatively small in number but should be addressed.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 4y ago
  Look even waiting 3 months is already a failure of the speedy requirement. Saying well 1 year is too long but edge cases isn’t a minor issue… No anyone ever hitting 1 year is clear evidence of total failure of the system to even pretend to care about this issue.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > Look even waiting 3 months is already a failure of the speedy requirement. 3-4 months to get a criminal case together, with discovery requirements, etc, seems reasonable. > No anyone ever hitting 1 year is clear evidence of total failure of the system to even pretend to care about this issue. I don't agree. Terrible stuff happens occasionally-- it is not evidence that every element of the system is broken everywhere. IMO the big issue is bail and pre-trial detention. Yes, criminal cases being in limbo is bad (and the constitutional right of speedy trial is important)-- but a lot of the reason why they take longer now than in the 18th century is because of additional protections for defendants.