5 ms·

> a speedy trial (i.e., the prosecutors must be ready for trial within 6 months of indictment). It's 71 days for federal trials, not six months. I know, it's

> a speedy trial (i.e., the prosecutors must be ready for trial within 6 months of indictment). It's 71 days for federal trials, not six months. I know, it's a nit.

panda-giddiness 4y ago
Thanks for the correction!
mym1990 4y ago
71 days vs 6 months is a pretty big difference though, less of a nit than you think!
fullstop 4y ago
I was summoned for a grand jury recently (not selected) and the entire process takes up to 18 months just for the potential indictment process.
- cryptonector 4y ago
  The grand jury part of the process has nothing to do with the speedy trial clause because a) the grand jury part of the process is non-adversarial (so the potential defendant doesn't even know about it), b) it precedes indictment.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    It does have to do with speedy trial, if the accused is arrested prior to indictment, since speedy trial rights attach at the first of any of a number of places, including arrest. (In the federal system, there is a 30 day clock for indictment or information from arrest.)
luxuryballs 4y ago
I wonder if this counts for the people in DC jail for Jan 6, or is that some quasi-federal thing since DC is a district by itself? But then I’d think it was at least somewhat a federal matter, and a speedy trial, one would hope, should apply at any level.
- cryptonector 4y ago
  In principle the right to speedy trial applies to all federal defendants, and DC is under federal jurisdiction. But a speedy trial, while a good right to have, is a difficult one to exercise. IIUC, and IANAl, you have to exercise it in early proceedings, but in early proceedings the defendant is at a disadvantage because prosecutors have had ample time to prepare and they knew they were going to indict while the defendant did not, so the defendant has 71 days to prepare a defense while the prosecutors had no time limit in preparing their case. I suspect few defendants ever demand a speedy trial. The right to a speedy trial may well have been incorporated against the States, but I don't know. In any case, a speedy trial mostly seems to mean that there must be a statutory limit to how much time can pass between indictment and the start of the trial, and between the start of a trial and closing arguments. Different States have different limits, and the variation in those limits surely must be constitutionally allowed, provided that in general they are a) statutory, b) not very long. I suspect a State could get away with 90 days from indictment. EDIT: Defendants don't actually get to waive the right to a speedy trial, but if they don't assert that right, then they don't get to ask for dismissal of charges due to violations of the right to a speedy trial.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > The right to a speedy trial may well have been incorporated against the States, The right to a speedy trial is incorporated against the states, yes. Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967). > a speedy trial mostly seems to mean that there must be a statutory limit to how much time can pass between indictment and the start of the trial No, it doesn’t, nor does it provide such fixed limits on its own, instead being applied lookong at reasonableness case by case. The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 providing federal limits was largely a reaction to this, rather than required by it.
    - chrisbaker98 4y ago
      What does "incorporated against" mean?
    - cryptonector 4y ago
dragonwriter 4y ago
> It's 71 days for federal trials 70 days from indictment or arraignment to trial, 30 days from arrest to information or indictment, under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974. But those timelines can be paused for many reasons. (Enforcement of the Constitutional rule does not use a hard timeline, but looks holistically at the length, reason, ans effect of delay and whether and how the defendant has asserted his right.)
- cryptonector 4y ago
  Thanks for the correction!

> a speedy trial (i.e., the prosecutors must be ready for trial within 6 months of indictment). It's 71 days for federal trials, not six months. I know, it's a nit.

panda-giddiness 4y ago

Thanks for the correction!

mym1990 4y ago

71 days vs 6 months is a pretty big difference though, less of a nit than you think!

fullstop 4y ago

I was summoned for a grand jury recently (not selected) and the entire process takes up to 18 months just for the potential indictment process.

cryptonector 4y ago
The grand jury part of the process has nothing to do with the speedy trial clause because a) the grand jury part of the process is non-adversarial (so the potential defendant doesn't even know about it), b) it precedes indictment.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  It does have to do with speedy trial, if the accused is arrested prior to indictment, since speedy trial rights attach at the first of any of a number of places, including arrest. (In the federal system, there is a 30 day clock for indictment or information from arrest.)

luxuryballs 4y ago

I wonder if this counts for the people in DC jail for Jan 6, or is that some quasi-federal thing since DC is a district by itself? But then I’d think it was at least somewhat a federal matter, and a speedy trial, one would hope, should apply at any level.

cryptonector 4y ago
In principle the right to speedy trial applies to all federal defendants, and DC is under federal jurisdiction. But a speedy trial, while a good right to have, is a difficult one to exercise. IIUC, and IANAl, you have to exercise it in early proceedings, but in early proceedings the defendant is at a disadvantage because prosecutors have had ample time to prepare and they knew they were going to indict while the defendant did not, so the defendant has 71 days to prepare a defense while the prosecutors had no time limit in preparing their case. I suspect few defendants ever demand a speedy trial. The right to a speedy trial may well have been incorporated against the States, but I don't know. In any case, a speedy trial mostly seems to mean that there must be a statutory limit to how much time can pass between indictment and the start of the trial, and between the start of a trial and closing arguments. Different States have different limits, and the variation in those limits surely must be constitutionally allowed, provided that in general they are a) statutory, b) not very long. I suspect a State could get away with 90 days from indictment. EDIT: Defendants don't actually get to waive the right to a speedy trial, but if they don't assert that right, then they don't get to ask for dismissal of charges due to violations of the right to a speedy trial.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The right to a speedy trial may well have been incorporated against the States, The right to a speedy trial is incorporated against the states, yes. Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967). > a speedy trial mostly seems to mean that there must be a statutory limit to how much time can pass between indictment and the start of the trial No, it doesn’t, nor does it provide such fixed limits on its own, instead being applied lookong at reasonableness case by case. The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 providing federal limits was largely a reaction to this, rather than required by it.
  - chrisbaker98 4y ago
    What does "incorporated against" mean?
  - cryptonector 4y ago

dragonwriter 4y ago

> It's 71 days for federal trials 70 days from indictment or arraignment to trial, 30 days from arrest to information or indictment, under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974. But those timelines can be paused for many reasons. (Enforcement of the Constitutional rule does not use a hard timeline, but looks holistically at the length, reason, ans effect of delay and whether and how the defendant has asserted his right.)

cryptonector 4y ago
Thanks for the correction!