The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense" (1).
The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 and state laws provide guidance as to the number of days to bring a defendant to trial before this right is violated. A prosecutor may work around the "speedy trial clock" if they can show good cause for a delay, or if a defendant agrees to waive the right. One reason for the right to a speedy trial is to prevent a defendant from being held in custody only to find out that the defendant was innocent. An innocent citizen who is incarcerated in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial is a violation of due process rights (2).
The Facts
Ben was indicted on 24 state counts of possession of fentanyl, with intent to distribute near an elementary school, and federal racketeering charges in September 2019. While Ben sat in jail, his attorney was able to delay his jury trial a few times so he could gather witnesses for Ben's defense. In March 2020, Ben's attorney submitted a motion to dismiss the charges for a violation of Ben's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The hearing was set for March 28. On March 15, the Governor of the state ordered all courts to close, and suspended jury trials due to public safety concerns over COVID-19. Ben did not get his hearing and remained in jail.
Research the Federal Speedy Trial Act and its requirements.
Research the law in your home state pertaining to the number of days a defendant may be held in jail, consistent with the requirements of the Sixth Amendment, for a felony and misdemeanor charge.
Read United States v. Olsen [PDF] Download United States v. Olsen [PDF].
Instructions
Full Answer Section
The Speedy Trial Act generally requires that a federal indictment be brought within thirty days of arrest or service of summons, and that the trial commence within seventy days from the filing of the indictment or information, or from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer, whichever occurs later. Excludable time, such as delays resulting from other proceedings, continuances granted for good cause, or other specific circumstances as defined in the Act, tolls the speedy trial clock.
State laws vary, but generally mirror the federal act in providing specific time frames for trial commencement. In United States v. Olsen, the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue of delays due to exceptional circumstances. The court emphasized that delays must be reasonable in light of the circumstances and that the defendant's right to a speedy trial must be balanced against other legitimate societal interests, such as public safety.
Analysis:
Ben was indicted in September 2019 and, due to continuances requested by his attorney, his hearing on the motion to dismiss for speedy trial violation was set for March 28, 2020. The Governor's order closing courts and suspending jury trials due to COVID-19 intervened on March 15, 2020, preventing the hearing.
The key question is whether the Governor's order constitutes "good cause" for the delay under the Speedy Trial Act and relevant state law. Given the unprecedented nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and the public safety concerns that prompted the order, it is highly likely a court would find that the order constitutes "good cause" for the delay. The closure of courts and suspension of jury trials were not within the control of the prosecution and were implemented to protect public health, including the health of court personnel, jurors, and defendants.
United States v. Olsen provides precedent for considering exceptional circumstances when evaluating speedy trial claims. In Olsen, the Ninth Circuit emphasized the importance of balancing the defendant's right to a speedy trial with other societal interests. In this instance, the societal interest in public health during a pandemic clearly outweighs the defendant's interest in a trial on a specific date. It is important to note that the delay was temporary and related to a public health emergency.
It is crucial to determine the specific time limits for trial commencement under both the Federal Speedy Trial Act and applicable state law. It must also be determined how continuances requested by the defendant's attorney may have impacted the speedy trial clock. If, even accounting for excludable time, the delay caused by the pandemic order exceeds permissible limits under either federal or state law, Ben might have a viable speedy trial claim.
However, the fact that the delay was caused by a public health emergency, and that the courts were closed, makes it less likely that a court would find that Ben's speedy trial right was violated. The delay was not attributable to prosecutorial misconduct or negligence, and it served a legitimate public interest.
Conclusion:
While Ben's trial was delayed due to the Governor's COVID-19 related order, it is unlikely a court would find this delay constituted a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The order was issued due to exceptional circumstances related to a public health emergency and likely constitutes "good cause" for the delay under both federal and state law. The precedent set by United States v. Olsen supports this conclusion, emphasizing the importance of balancing the defendant's speedy trial right with other societal interests, such as public safety during a pandemic. However, a definitive determination would require a careful examination of the specific time limits under applicable federal and state law, as well as the impact of prior defense-requested continuances.
Sample Answer
Application of the Sixth Amendment and COVID-19 Template
Case Name: United States v. Ben
Issue: Did the Governor's order suspending jury trials due to COVID-19 public safety concerns, preventing Ben's hearing on his motion to dismiss for speedy trial violation, constitute a violation of Ben's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial?
Rule:
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to a speedy trial. This right is further defined by the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 (federal) and similar state statutes. These laws set specific time limits within which a trial must commence. Delays can be permissible if there is "good cause" or if the defendant waives their right. However, excessive delays can constitute a violation of the Sixth Amendment, potentially leading to dismissal of charges.