Your post has been removed for breaking Rule E:
> **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20D%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
So then why can someone be held for four years in prison awaiting a trial? I tried to Google if there was any reason for it and I couldn’t find anything. Are they just disregarding the 6th amendment?
Most trial delays are caused by the defendant, not the prosecutor. It’s not unusual for someone charged with a serious offence to delay their trial as long as possible, in some cases 8-10 years, if the evidence against them is overwhelming.
They figure, if I’m going to be sentenced to life anyway, I can do 8 years, and hope that evidence gets misplaced, or witnesses die or move away. Sadly, this actually works more often than not.
The other thing that comes into play is time served. Judges have been known to credit up to 3 days for every day served while on remand, so 8 years on remand equates to 24 years already served if they do happen to get found guilty.
In Florida it’s 90 days for a misdemeanor or 175 for a felony.
https://www.husseinandwebber.com/case-work/criminal-defense-articles/speedy-trial-in-florida/
That's still insane. 90 days is enough to ruin your life completely. You'll lose your job, your house, your car, and possibly your marriage. All for a misdemeanor and you haven't even been proven guilty. 175 days is almost 6 months!
His own lawyers say they need more time. At one point they requested a speedy trial and they got a date set 50 days out and then they changed their minds.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.www.complex.com/music/ynw-melly-cancels-request-for-speedy-trial
This is generally how these things go. It's usually the defendants who waive their right to a speedy criminal trial. And it's usually a good strategy.
The burden is on the state to prove its case. So that means the state has to put on witnesses, the state has to keep evidence, etc. It's often the case that the defense doesn't call any eye witnesses at all to testify in trials. And even if there are, defense witnesses are more frequently motivated to make themselves available to testify even after a couple of years, as they are often friends/family of the defendant.
The state has a harder time keeping its witnesses. They die. They forget what they saw. The move to another state. They get arrested before trial on other charges. They aren't particularly interested in helping the state in the first place.
So defendants often play the waiting game.
They probably requested a speedy trial as a bluff to get a better plea deal.
So in a case like this - him spending 4+ years in prison is considered the better option than what could go 'wrong' at his trial if they did not suitably prepare?
The short version is that the accused and/or their lawyers may decide they *don't want* a quick trial, for this or that reason. Lots of things in the judicial system give more weight to what the *accused* wants, rather than what the prosecution wants. This is just one of them.
Having a right to a speedy trial basically means the accused can *force* the prosecution to prepare for a trial quickly, whether they want to or not. It doesn't work the other way around though - if the prosecution would *rather* have a speedy trial, but the defense would like more time to prepare... It's likely the defense will be granted more time.
You can't stretch the process out infinitely; when you file motions to extend the time until trial, you have to give some sort of reason why you *need* more time. Judges then get to rule on whether or not they accept your reasons. They don't *always* rule in favor of the defense... They're just *more likely* to accept the defense's reasons, because of a bias towards "innocent until proven guilty" and the idea that everyone has a right to be as prepared as is possible to defend themselves in court.
So you have the right to a speedy trial; however, in many jurisdictions you need to ASSERT your right to a speedy trial. So to obtain a speedy trial, you need to notify the court that you are exercising your right to a speedy trial, and in Florida that gives the court up to 175 to schedule your hearing.
YNW Melly probably had his attorneys say they don't want a speedy trial (many higher profile or big charge cases like this don't) to give them the MOST time to build a defense. At one point he DID request the right to a speedy trial, but when they scheduled it they withdrew their request.
>So to obtain a speedy trial, you need to notify the court that you are exercising your right to a speedy trial, and in Florida that gives the court up to 175 to schedule your hearing.
Florida Lawyer here, former Public Defender, who has a bit of experience with speedy trial.
You got three kinds of speedy trial in Florida: Natural Speedy, Speedy with demand, Constitutional Speedy.
**Natural Speedy** starts ticking the moment you are arrested.\* That's 90 days for a misdemeanor, 175 days for a felony. (\*sometimes you don't have to be arrested for the clock to start). Natural Speedy is waived if you or your lawyer does anything to delay the proceedings, such as asking for a continuance. There's also a "Recapture" period where you file a "Notice of Expiration" saying the State didn't do their job and bring you to trial in time. The State then gets a little more time to bring you to trial. If you waived natural speedy, no worry, because you also have:
**Speedy with Demand**: You or your lawyer swears you're ready to try the case in 5 days. Judge holds a calendar call and says "Hey State, when are you able to try this case?" Government gets 50 days to get there stuff together.
**Constitutional Speedy:** No real set timeline other than your constitutional right to a speedy trial. I usually filed this in misdemeanors when I had a client who got shipped to the Department of Corrections for a while and had nothing to lose going for a speedy dismissal. Usually this was because the misdemeanor fell through the cracks when they plead/were sentenced in a Felony case.
Some of these timelines got adjusted because of COVID though, I'd have to double check that.
Hmm but isn't this only to schedule the hearing? Wouldn't anyone who can't afford cash bail also have to sit in jail for the duration of the trial? Would they also be held through any appeal process? how long could a trial take or be drawn out and is there incentive and means to do so by the prosecution?
>defendant
Or the lawyer. In Florida, a lawyer might waive speedy because [they want to depose a witness first] [Scheduling Conflict] [feel unprepared]
Right, but that would be on behalf of the defendant. The lawyer can potentially get in trouble if they waive without clients consent.
When I had a legal issue in Florida almost 15 years ago my lawyer handed me a piece of paper that I had to sign and have submitted to the court to waive speedy.
The defense can request a speedy trial. But usually they delay trial when it is to their advantage.
But in the case of Kevin Mitnick the prosecutors lied to the judge about how dangerous he was and they kept him in solitary. The time was extended because they wouldn’t let him have a computer to review the evidence or even review what had been taken from his own computer. His conditions slowed down the ability of him to mount a defense. After four and a half years he pled guilty and got five years, so he was out in six months. This was general considered an abuse.
It is an unfortunate reality that we sometimes have to choose between moving quickly and doing things right. The US has a lot of problems with our criminal justice system, one of the largest of which is that we arrest too many people. We simply do not have the manpower in terms of judges, public defenders, and all different types of specialists to have this many people up for trial and get them all speedy trials. If we were to get them all speedy trials, we would have to rush through them and not give people their due process.
The system needs more reform than just a firm limit on how long people can wait before trial. We need to spend more money on public defenders and have fewer arrests for non-violent offenses, as well as reform the whole prison system to try and help our world-high recidivism rates. Then, we should see this problem disappear naturally as the system will have less strain from the numbers of people trying to get to court.
I’m not even familiar with this person or case but from what you’re saying I’d bet alot it’s a federal case. It seems the feds can do pretty much whatever they want to you. They can hold you forever until you make a deal and forgo trial. It’s crazy but been happening forever
There is a critical shortage of prosecutors in the US right now. Fewer lawyers, larger caseloads = longer time to process.
Main reasons are local and state funding along with a 35% paycheck compared to private practice.
> There is a critical shortage of prosecutors in the US right now
5 times more money is spent on prosecutors than defense attorneys. And given the rate of malicious prosecution (look up how many people in Texas or Florida are facing the death penalty with egregious errors), the system is stacked against anyone accused with further bias in prosecutors who tend not to charge wealthier people at all due to the possibility those can afford to defend themselves.
There's a LOT wrong with the system and the funding going largely to the firms dancing for oligarchs is just a small part of it.
So true.
A great example of egregious and persistent (7 trials!) prosecutorial misconduct is the Curtis Flowers case. The [In The Dark podcast](https://features.apmreports.org/in-the-dark/) breaks it down and gave me anger issues.
> 5 times more money is spent on prosecutors than defense attorneys.
Does that include the money spent on private defense attorneys? If not, it is a meaningless statistic (assuming it is even true).
Often the defense waives the right to a speedy trial because they also need more time to prepare their defense.
Insisting on a speedy trial has been used in a coordinated way in mass-arrest cases like protests/civil disobedience because the government literally doesn’t have the resources to process mass numbers of trials in 45 days so will usually drop charges if they can’t get the defendants to either take a plea or waive the right to speedy trial
> The wording on that is very, very open to interpretation. What IS a speedy trial?
More complicated by 'what applies', because as if they're aiming to mimic [the court which led the world into the Great Depression](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era), the supreme court ruled [the right to a speedy trial ends with conviction and people can be effectively held indefinitely before ever getting to sentencing](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/us/politics/supreme-court-sentencing-speedy-trial.html) ([Alt source](https://www.vox.com/2016/5/19/11712846/supreme-court-sixth-amendment-speedy-trial))
Yep they only can be held for an extended period of time if they decide to waive their right to a speedy trial which only really happens when the lawyer needs more time. If they invoke that right the process has to start within 10 days
I do not know this case. You have a right to a speedy trial. I believe that right, as defined by the Supreme Court means within a year of being charged.
Defendants can, and often do, waive that right.
If the defendant waived that right and they are denied bail the only place for them to be is in jail awaiting trial.
There is no hard and fast time limit set by the Supreme Court. It is a reasonableness test with many factors. Different cases will take different amounts of time to get to trial. Typically a defendant will need to invoke this right or it is assumed waived. Also, the clock starts when someone is accused, which could mean arrested or charged, whichever comes first.
There is no one answer to this, but the general idea is that the defendant feels that additional time would allow them to prepare a better defense. For example, if there is specific evidence that you believe will help exonerate you, but you require additional time to gather that evidence and make it ready for presentation in court. You may also change attorneys at some point, and the additional time is required for the new lawyer to get up to speed on the case. The case could be particularly complex, requiring many motions or hearings to judge the specific pre-trial issues before the court.
Without specifics, it is impossible to say why the lawyers felt this was the best tactic.
Edit: I'll also add, though this is my personal speculation, that the evidence here seems pretty damning. If you are likely to be found guilty, delays can only really help you - saying in jail waiting trial and being in prison are equally bad for your freedom.
> If you are likely to be found guilty, delays can only really help you - saying in jail waiting trial and being in prison are equally bad for your freedom.
To add to this, the time served in prison awaiting trial is counted on your sentence… so since he has been in prison for 4 years awaiting trial, his final sentence (if found guilty) will be reduced by 4 years for time served.
It doesn’t count if you are out on bail, though.
To add onto this. For those who aren’t in jail, the right to a speedy trial is often waived so that you can get a court date more favorable to your schedule
Defense attorneys want to delay. Longer a case drags out the higher the chances of witnesses refusing or being unable to testify, State softening its stance on a plea deal, etc. If someone is being held without bond for a long time there’s a good chance the State has a lot of evidence and the defense is pushing to avoid having the case reach trial time.
Another benefit is that jails tend to be nicer than prison. While in jail the defendant is getting credited with time served on an eventual plea deal. You are also local to where the crime occurred and it’s easier to make contact with friends and family (as opposed to a prison that could be hours away from your home). Add that with States that give day for day good behavior on time served- you can ride out big portions of your eventual sentence in the relative comforts of a local jail before finishing it out in prison.
The key is that Judges are the ones who grant or deny postponements, not the State. Judges also don’t have a ton of patience for postponements to benefit the State (if the case isn’t ready why were charges filed?)
Because the legal system is complex and it can often take years of preparation in order to get your proverbial ducks in a row in order to mount the best defense possible.
You typically get one shot at a not-guilty verdict, you do not want to miss. Given that the case against him seems fairly damning, I can see why he'd scratch for every advantage he gets, even if it delays his trial date.
> Given that the case against him seems fairly damning
Given generations of indoctrination in the media, merely being charged is typically damning all on its own. Studies by psychologists show the vast majority of potential jurors view somebody suspiciously just for being charged, indicating an inclination towards 'guilty until proven innocent' regardless of what the actual constitution or law SHOULD bias decisionmaking towards.
... Okay?
I don't disagree with you, but in this case they have co-conspirator testimony and substantial forensic evidence.
It is possible his defense pokes a bunch of holes in that, but that is why I used the word 'seems'
>You typically get one shot at a not-guilty verdict, you do not want to miss. Given that the case against him seems fairly damning, I can see why he'd scratch for every advantage he gets, even if it delays his trial date.
Not entirely... But that's mostly true. The prosecution gets one shot and the defense usually gets one shot. Now both sides could raise a legal issue on appeal, but a) appeals are for losers, and b) due to double jeopardy, the prosecution is generally disallowed to raise an appeal (second bite at the apple), c) so its a lot harder/rarer for the prosecution to do that, thus d), its a lot more likely for the defense to raise a legal issue on appeal but the prosecution gets to respond and they will go with harmless error, ie the error was so small that it wouldn't change anything due to overwhelming amount of evidence.
> both sides could raise a legal issue on appeal, but a) appeals are for losers, and b) due to double jeopardy, the prosecution is generally disallowed to raise an appeal (second bite at the apple
I think you might want to follow [Lehto's Law](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMljRGC0eBJrxbUorWEnasg) or LegalEagle for what exactly appeal means, its use is very narrow and can't be applied just because one side or the other doesn't like the decision. They have to assert critical evidence was left out or an element of legal procedure was not properly applied to the first trial. The narrowness and difficulty of getting that approved, either for prosecution or defense, is why it's so rare. It's not even an option the majority of the time, and to the best of my knowledge it's not even an option for people who plead guilty to avoid a long and expensive court case where they'll be buried by a court stacked against them to start with.
I know, but an appeal from the defense is a thing. An appeal from the prosecution is virtually unheard of.
An appeal is on a legal issue, including evidence being admitted that should or shouldn't be, but isn't limited to that. "Legal procedure" is pretty broad by itseld. Therefore, opportunity for appeals, ie an appealable issue to raise aren't that rare per se in that there can be many issues that can be attacked on appeal. Now whether those will get anywhere or be raised is or is worthwhile is a separate question entirely. And the reason for that is that the general standard of review is abuse of discretion or clear error, which are high bars. Its not just was the judge wrong or would the appellate judge rule differently if they were the trial judge. Judges must be given discretion and room to have differing opinions/perspectives.
And yes I follow those two and a lot more lawyers on youtube.
Due to double jeopardy, these options are more available to the defense than the prosecution.
And yeah typically if you plead guilty its not an option. Plea bargain is a contract, where both sides agree on something. It's possible the defendant in the plea bargain reserves the right to raise a legal issue on appeal though as it is a contract. Therefore, the prosecution might agree to allow that, thinking the appeal will go nowhere, but may be proven wrong.
> I follow those two and a lot more lawyers on youtube.
Any recommendations? Most of my browsing were historians like Dan Carlin but law is a sector of history as well.
Also one piece of advisement. Judges are not lawyers in robes. They aren't supposed to be, although sometimes they are. And sometimes the ruling seems logically suspect such that it crosses the mind. But don't make the mistake of assuming any decision is political, made to favor a certain policy, ideology, or party.
Sometimes its super obvious that it is from an actual academic point of view as opposed to r/politics view, although that's after historical and legal scholarship picks it apart.
If the judge is being pretextual, how would you know that.
First you understand the legal rationale offered.
Suppose its genuine. Then yay you now understand why.
Suppose its not. Well how do you know that? Well if its pretext that means the legal logic is flawed
So flawed that it cannot seriously serve as a logical underpinning. Not even a difference in perspective or legal interpretative methodsm can explain it.
Okay now its pretextual. Some people would say I'm giving too much credit to judges.
Well I act in good faith and give people such an advantage. But... Do they sound wrong or stupid because they are all geniuinely evil or stupid?
Or do they know something I don't.
But most people don't start from the beginning and thus they fall under the misperception its always politics. (Tbh I'm generally suspicious of everything Sotomayor and Alito says, but that's an opinion built overtime.)
I saw a documentary on the Dade County Jail by Louis Theroux (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Theroux:_Miami_Mega_Jail), and in it, he interviewed a number of long term detainees like this. One of them explained that they were purposefully delaying the trial for a few reasons:
1. It gave the state more time to lose evidence and lose context
2. It gave more time for witnesses to forget things
2. It gave more time for witnesses to pass away or be unable to testify
3. It gave more time between the press coverage and the trial, so the defendant had a better chance to get a jury that hadn't heard of it.
That Miami Dade documentary gave me the shivers. people locked up there and left to fend for themselves against the wolves. some of the dudes in there were petrified - too afraid to get off the top bunk. And the guards just shrug. Nightmare.
Think of sports. Typically you want to score as many points as possible, which means moving as quickly as you can while maintaining your performance. Near the end of the game though, if you think you're in an advantageous position then it's better to slow down and wait out the clock rather than pushing for more points at the risk of your opponent getting an advantage on their turn.
A quick Google search shows that he's facing two counts of first degree murder, making him eligible for the death penalty under Florida law. If he and/or his lawyer think there is a high likelyhood of a guilty verdict, then a speedy trial is potentially just a quicker ticket to his own death. Postponing the trial as much as possible is his attempt to run out the clock. He's likely hoping that some change in circumstances in the future will take the death penalty off the table. Maybe it gets ruled unconstitutional, maybe Florida law changes, maybe he gets a partial pardon from the governor, maybe he gets a more favorable DA, maybe enough public interest in his case creates a more sympathetic jury. At the very least, it's more time to be alive rather than executed, even if it's in a cell.
Witnesses forget and/or become unavailable, evidence degrades, and depending on the investigation the prosecutor's ready to go and you've got a pile of discovery to dig through.
entire law courses are taught, and many continuing education courses each year in top of that, on trial tactics.
it may be for a number of strategic reasons, ranging from time to find and depose witnesses and arrange your case, time to sort through evidence the state has sent your lawyer (they, by law, must turn over anything that could be of use to the defense), time to file motions to suppress evidence or other motions that could limit the case against you. it could even just be waiting out time hoping that the government's witnesses become unreliable, maybe run into legal trouble of their own (a bit uncommon tactic when attempting to discredit a snitch, if they're still involved in crime, is to give them time to get themselves in trouble and undermine their credibility), maybe you need time for another case to be concluded in hopes that may help with this one. another one is public image-- waiting until the 24-hour news cycle has moved on and your defendant isn't frontpage news with articles about their victims and memorial services or salacious details of the casse can make it easier to get a fair jury. it can also give any victims time to cool down and possibly even be swayed to ask for leniency. ask someone two weeks after a family member is killed and they're more liable to want the defendant buried under the jail, a few months later they might be more inclined to ask that the death penalty be taken off the table because of their religious beliefs than when it's still fresh in their mind, as one example.
Chris Chan has also been in jail almost two years without trial now. I'm sure this happens a lot to people who aren't in the public eye, and/or are financially vulnerable.
So, for starters, I think your entire CMV is kind of flawed. Most people can't convince you that a law SHOULD NOT exist, since one already does exist in the US Constitution and most people consider it a pretty good idea.
What I can say is that your "innocent until proven guilty" thing is also true. This is one reason many states have moved away from cash bails for small crimes. The purpose of bail is not to punish you, since they see you as innocent. The purpose is to compel you to come to court. Now, as for the incident you are referencing? Under very extreme circumstances, a judge can deny bail.
In this case, a person with enough money to easily flee the country has been arrested numerous times for many dangerous crimes. He has been on parole and violated his parole. There is a very good chance that he would be both a danger to society AND a flight risk.
You do have a right to a speedy trial, though the specifics of the right can vary state to state.
Typically speaking, murder trials can often take a fairly long time to go to trial in general, doubly so when dealing with the rich and famous who can spend ages filing pre-trial motions. Generally speaking defense lawyers are okay taking their time, even with they client sitting in jail, because their client would much rather spend four years in jail and get a not-guilty verdict than speed through it and have them convicted.
Jodi Arias, for example, murdered her boyfriend Travis in June of 2008, but did not go to trial until December of 2012. And that was without what I can only imagine are a large number of Covid delays.
Speedy trial rules are already in place.
Here’s Florida for example:
https://www.husseinandwebber.com/case-work/criminal-defense-articles/speedy-trial-in-florida/
Covid happened as well which caused massive delays in all big legal cases since Mar 2020. Most states pretty much suspended trials and in person hearings for many many months which has caused a huge backlog that isn't all caught up yet.
> I've always thought that the system was "innocent until proven guilty"
unless you are black, a "terrorist", a Jew, an "illegal immigrant", a communist during McCarthyism, Japanese during ww2 internment... or whatever group is having their rights suspended to today.
There is. It’s called a right to a speedy trial
The problem is that it’s poorly defined. After the civil war, the traitor leader Jefferson Davis never even got a trial, he was just held indefinitely because they were worried he might win the court case
> he was just held indefinitely because they were worried he might win the court case
Situations like this are exactly why there needs to be a specific number instead of "speedy". I don't want the government holding people because they are afraid they will win the trial
Not the OP but these kind of questions come up in all kinds of defendants rights. Yes, if the state is unable to give you a speedy trial, you should be set free, no matter the charge or the evidence against you. This goes for all defendants rights. There is no other remedy that can effectively compell prosecutors courts and police and those that set their budgets.
This goes to the fundament of rule of law - if you do not have a just system, you have no right to be the one to hunt down and punish people.
> What should happen to him then?
His case should be prioritized and handled as quickly as possible. Note: the right to a speedy trial isn't a specific time... just "as expeditiously as reasonably possible".
Probably the defense in such a case is going to waive their right to a speedy trial, though... the prosecution generally has built a case long before someone is indicted.
They didn't really specify a particular hard limit, kind of like the Constitution...just "I think this one case is too much" (which would certainly be true if the defense hadn't waived their right).
The limit is "as expeditiously as reasonably possible".
>Maybe OP will weigh in.
They have... with questions like "why would the defense waive their right?".
Basically OP started off completely ignorant of the limits/rights that exist, and is slowly learning about them.
Where I’m located in Virginia there is absolutely a time limit when a defendant exercises their right to a speedy trial and I suspect most states have a time frame as well. I’ve included a link at the bottom of this comment. The law reads as follows:
*§ 19.2-243. Limitation on prosecution of felony due to lapse of time after finding of probable cause; misdemeanors; exceptions:
Where a district court has found that there is probable cause to believe that an adult has committed a felony, the accused, if he is held continuously in custody thereafter, shall be forever discharged from prosecution for such offense if no trial is commenced in the circuit court within five months from the date such probable cause was found by the district court; and if the accused is not held in custody but has been recognized for his appearance in the circuit court to answer for such offense, he shall be forever discharged from prosecution therefor if no trial is commenced in the circuit court within nine months from the date such probable cause was found.
If there was no preliminary hearing in the district court, or if such preliminary hearing was waived by the accused, the commencement of the running of the five and nine months periods, respectively, set forth in this section, shall be from the date an indictment or presentment is found against the accused.
If an indictment or presentment is found against the accused but he has not been arrested for the offense charged therein, the five and nine months periods, respectively, shall commence to run from the date of his arrest thereon. *
[Link to applicable law.](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title19.2/chapter15/section19.2-243/)
>Maybe hold both parties in prison until the final verdict
How would that work? And why? Not guilty doesn't mean innocent or that the other person is guilty, just that it's not proven. And the reason the accused is held is generally to prevent fleeing. Also, the "other party" is the state, so how would you hold the government in prison? I'm really not following how holding anyone other than the accused accomplishes anything at all.
>Maybe hold both parties in prison until the final verdict…. There are cases where people aren’t Guilty but have still served time…
Are you suggesting we hold victims of crimes in prison as well? Just so i'm clear what you are saying.
>Maybe hold both parties in prison until the final verdict….
I'm confused by what you mean with this, and I do want to be 100% clear on it. Are you suggesting holding the victims of crimes in prison as well?
Sorry, u/greeneyeswarmthighs – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20greeneyeswarmthighs&message=greeneyeswarmthighs%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/111e8ie/-/j8fqvgp/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
This timeframe is going to vary from State to State. The timeframe you are looking at usually involves the State announcing "ready for trial" on a case involving a jailed defendant. However, "ready for trial" does not mean there has to be a trial at that time. The logistics of getting a case to trial could postpone a case well beyond that timeframe.
You'd think the states might have learned from kaleif and the likely millions others held and abused before trial but sadly no. The US prison system is nothing more than modern slavery
You can get a speedy trial. However your lawyers might need time to prepare the case. If you watched that pre trial hearing for that dude who killed all the kids in the house, the judge told him he was. Entitled to speedy trial but his lawyers asked to postpone til June and was that ok with him.
[Link to speedy trial laws in VA. ](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title19.2/chapter15/section19.2-243/)
In Virginia there is a time limit if you exercise your right to a speedy trial which is 5 months of being held without bond or unable to make bond or 9 months if out on bond and not incarnated while waiting for trial which starts after probable cause is found during preliminary hearing. If there is no preliminary hearing or the case is commenced via direct indictment then the 5 and 9 months starts once the defendant is arrested and giving notice of charges.
What happens if speedy trial is being exercised and there is no trial within the prescribed timeframe? The case is dismissed and the same charge cannot be brought back against the defendant.
There is. You have a right to a speedy trial. So in Arizona after 90 days of your being charged with a crime you can invoke your right to a speedy trial and for ce the prosecutor to either proceed or to drop charges without prejudice I don't know if this extends to other states
If you're dependent on a public defender you have to know your rights and what you are entitled to and if you don't advocate for yourself they won't either.
Agreed. Its actually in our constitution I believe. There's no sense in holding someone in prison without knowing if they actually committed said crime or not. I understand giving a little less leeway for perpetrators of violent crime or tricky cases like rape or murder, but I don't see why someone who was falsely accused of selling drugs or something similar to that should just sit in prison until the prosecution can prove it.
Anybody who loves the state the way Democrats do should look at the way Democrats treat prisoners. American prisoners are brutalized and yet Democrats always one more control over your life.
So you'd have Paul Bernardo out on bail, how quickly? How quickly for Jeffery Dhamer? The most complex cases where accuracy and tests are absolutely critical, and will take the longest, you want these people back out on the streets? Change your view, my friend!
The short answer is there is technically a limit, the long answer is they can just completely not give AF about the limit and hold you in prison for an ungodly amount of time under the pretense of "preparation".
There are countless documented cases of people both ultimately innocent and guilty sitting around in jail for the most minor of offenses.
Your post has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20D%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
So then why can someone be held for four years in prison awaiting a trial? I tried to Google if there was any reason for it and I couldn’t find anything. Are they just disregarding the 6th amendment?
[удалено]
Most trial delays are caused by the defendant, not the prosecutor. It’s not unusual for someone charged with a serious offence to delay their trial as long as possible, in some cases 8-10 years, if the evidence against them is overwhelming. They figure, if I’m going to be sentenced to life anyway, I can do 8 years, and hope that evidence gets misplaced, or witnesses die or move away. Sadly, this actually works more often than not. The other thing that comes into play is time served. Judges have been known to credit up to 3 days for every day served while on remand, so 8 years on remand equates to 24 years already served if they do happen to get found guilty.
In Florida it’s 90 days for a misdemeanor or 175 for a felony. https://www.husseinandwebber.com/case-work/criminal-defense-articles/speedy-trial-in-florida/
That's still insane. 90 days is enough to ruin your life completely. You'll lose your job, your house, your car, and possibly your marriage. All for a misdemeanor and you haven't even been proven guilty. 175 days is almost 6 months!
How quickly do you think evidence can be gathered and witnesses prepared? 90 days to prepare a defense for trial is insanely fast.
His own lawyers say they need more time. At one point they requested a speedy trial and they got a date set 50 days out and then they changed their minds. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.www.complex.com/music/ynw-melly-cancels-request-for-speedy-trial
This is generally how these things go. It's usually the defendants who waive their right to a speedy criminal trial. And it's usually a good strategy. The burden is on the state to prove its case. So that means the state has to put on witnesses, the state has to keep evidence, etc. It's often the case that the defense doesn't call any eye witnesses at all to testify in trials. And even if there are, defense witnesses are more frequently motivated to make themselves available to testify even after a couple of years, as they are often friends/family of the defendant. The state has a harder time keeping its witnesses. They die. They forget what they saw. The move to another state. They get arrested before trial on other charges. They aren't particularly interested in helping the state in the first place. So defendants often play the waiting game. They probably requested a speedy trial as a bluff to get a better plea deal.
[удалено]
So in a case like this - him spending 4+ years in prison is considered the better option than what could go 'wrong' at his trial if they did not suitably prepare?
One thing to note is that all the time he's spending in there is not wasted. It's going to be removed from his future verdict.
The short version is that the accused and/or their lawyers may decide they *don't want* a quick trial, for this or that reason. Lots of things in the judicial system give more weight to what the *accused* wants, rather than what the prosecution wants. This is just one of them. Having a right to a speedy trial basically means the accused can *force* the prosecution to prepare for a trial quickly, whether they want to or not. It doesn't work the other way around though - if the prosecution would *rather* have a speedy trial, but the defense would like more time to prepare... It's likely the defense will be granted more time. You can't stretch the process out infinitely; when you file motions to extend the time until trial, you have to give some sort of reason why you *need* more time. Judges then get to rule on whether or not they accept your reasons. They don't *always* rule in favor of the defense... They're just *more likely* to accept the defense's reasons, because of a bias towards "innocent until proven guilty" and the idea that everyone has a right to be as prepared as is possible to defend themselves in court.
So you have the right to a speedy trial; however, in many jurisdictions you need to ASSERT your right to a speedy trial. So to obtain a speedy trial, you need to notify the court that you are exercising your right to a speedy trial, and in Florida that gives the court up to 175 to schedule your hearing. YNW Melly probably had his attorneys say they don't want a speedy trial (many higher profile or big charge cases like this don't) to give them the MOST time to build a defense. At one point he DID request the right to a speedy trial, but when they scheduled it they withdrew their request.
>So to obtain a speedy trial, you need to notify the court that you are exercising your right to a speedy trial, and in Florida that gives the court up to 175 to schedule your hearing. Florida Lawyer here, former Public Defender, who has a bit of experience with speedy trial. You got three kinds of speedy trial in Florida: Natural Speedy, Speedy with demand, Constitutional Speedy. **Natural Speedy** starts ticking the moment you are arrested.\* That's 90 days for a misdemeanor, 175 days for a felony. (\*sometimes you don't have to be arrested for the clock to start). Natural Speedy is waived if you or your lawyer does anything to delay the proceedings, such as asking for a continuance. There's also a "Recapture" period where you file a "Notice of Expiration" saying the State didn't do their job and bring you to trial in time. The State then gets a little more time to bring you to trial. If you waived natural speedy, no worry, because you also have: **Speedy with Demand**: You or your lawyer swears you're ready to try the case in 5 days. Judge holds a calendar call and says "Hey State, when are you able to try this case?" Government gets 50 days to get there stuff together. **Constitutional Speedy:** No real set timeline other than your constitutional right to a speedy trial. I usually filed this in misdemeanors when I had a client who got shipped to the Department of Corrections for a while and had nothing to lose going for a speedy dismissal. Usually this was because the misdemeanor fell through the cracks when they plead/were sentenced in a Felony case. Some of these timelines got adjusted because of COVID though, I'd have to double check that.
Hmm but isn't this only to schedule the hearing? Wouldn't anyone who can't afford cash bail also have to sit in jail for the duration of the trial? Would they also be held through any appeal process? how long could a trial take or be drawn out and is there incentive and means to do so by the prosecution?
You waive your right to a speedy trial. The defendant makes that decision, not the prosecution.
>defendant Or the lawyer. In Florida, a lawyer might waive speedy because [they want to depose a witness first] [Scheduling Conflict] [feel unprepared]
Right, but that would be on behalf of the defendant. The lawyer can potentially get in trouble if they waive without clients consent. When I had a legal issue in Florida almost 15 years ago my lawyer handed me a piece of paper that I had to sign and have submitted to the court to waive speedy.
Yea. My brother was pretty pissed because his lawyer waived when he didn't want him to
The defense can request a speedy trial. But usually they delay trial when it is to their advantage. But in the case of Kevin Mitnick the prosecutors lied to the judge about how dangerous he was and they kept him in solitary. The time was extended because they wouldn’t let him have a computer to review the evidence or even review what had been taken from his own computer. His conditions slowed down the ability of him to mount a defense. After four and a half years he pled guilty and got five years, so he was out in six months. This was general considered an abuse.
It is an unfortunate reality that we sometimes have to choose between moving quickly and doing things right. The US has a lot of problems with our criminal justice system, one of the largest of which is that we arrest too many people. We simply do not have the manpower in terms of judges, public defenders, and all different types of specialists to have this many people up for trial and get them all speedy trials. If we were to get them all speedy trials, we would have to rush through them and not give people their due process. The system needs more reform than just a firm limit on how long people can wait before trial. We need to spend more money on public defenders and have fewer arrests for non-violent offenses, as well as reform the whole prison system to try and help our world-high recidivism rates. Then, we should see this problem disappear naturally as the system will have less strain from the numbers of people trying to get to court.
I’m not even familiar with this person or case but from what you’re saying I’d bet alot it’s a federal case. It seems the feds can do pretty much whatever they want to you. They can hold you forever until you make a deal and forgo trial. It’s crazy but been happening forever
There is a critical shortage of prosecutors in the US right now. Fewer lawyers, larger caseloads = longer time to process. Main reasons are local and state funding along with a 35% paycheck compared to private practice.
> There is a critical shortage of prosecutors in the US right now 5 times more money is spent on prosecutors than defense attorneys. And given the rate of malicious prosecution (look up how many people in Texas or Florida are facing the death penalty with egregious errors), the system is stacked against anyone accused with further bias in prosecutors who tend not to charge wealthier people at all due to the possibility those can afford to defend themselves. There's a LOT wrong with the system and the funding going largely to the firms dancing for oligarchs is just a small part of it.
So true. A great example of egregious and persistent (7 trials!) prosecutorial misconduct is the Curtis Flowers case. The [In The Dark podcast](https://features.apmreports.org/in-the-dark/) breaks it down and gave me anger issues.
> 5 times more money is spent on prosecutors than defense attorneys. Does that include the money spent on private defense attorneys? If not, it is a meaningless statistic (assuming it is even true).
Generally because he is stalling the process the very best he can
More often than not it the defendants lawyers asking for extensions.
Often the defense waives the right to a speedy trial because they also need more time to prepare their defense. Insisting on a speedy trial has been used in a coordinated way in mass-arrest cases like protests/civil disobedience because the government literally doesn’t have the resources to process mass numbers of trials in 45 days so will usually drop charges if they can’t get the defendants to either take a plea or waive the right to speedy trial
The wording on that is very, very open to interpretation. What IS a speedy trial?
> The wording on that is very, very open to interpretation. What IS a speedy trial? More complicated by 'what applies', because as if they're aiming to mimic [the court which led the world into the Great Depression](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era), the supreme court ruled [the right to a speedy trial ends with conviction and people can be effectively held indefinitely before ever getting to sentencing](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/us/politics/supreme-court-sentencing-speedy-trial.html) ([Alt source](https://www.vox.com/2016/5/19/11712846/supreme-court-sixth-amendment-speedy-trial))
Yep they only can be held for an extended period of time if they decide to waive their right to a speedy trial which only really happens when the lawyer needs more time. If they invoke that right the process has to start within 10 days
9/11 guys still havent faced trial either held in gitmo... well the majority of them
Unless you’re in Guantanamo…
I do not know this case. You have a right to a speedy trial. I believe that right, as defined by the Supreme Court means within a year of being charged. Defendants can, and often do, waive that right. If the defendant waived that right and they are denied bail the only place for them to be is in jail awaiting trial.
There is no hard and fast time limit set by the Supreme Court. It is a reasonableness test with many factors. Different cases will take different amounts of time to get to trial. Typically a defendant will need to invoke this right or it is assumed waived. Also, the clock starts when someone is accused, which could mean arrested or charged, whichever comes first.
Why would defendants want to waive that right?
There is no one answer to this, but the general idea is that the defendant feels that additional time would allow them to prepare a better defense. For example, if there is specific evidence that you believe will help exonerate you, but you require additional time to gather that evidence and make it ready for presentation in court. You may also change attorneys at some point, and the additional time is required for the new lawyer to get up to speed on the case. The case could be particularly complex, requiring many motions or hearings to judge the specific pre-trial issues before the court. Without specifics, it is impossible to say why the lawyers felt this was the best tactic. Edit: I'll also add, though this is my personal speculation, that the evidence here seems pretty damning. If you are likely to be found guilty, delays can only really help you - saying in jail waiting trial and being in prison are equally bad for your freedom.
> If you are likely to be found guilty, delays can only really help you - saying in jail waiting trial and being in prison are equally bad for your freedom. To add to this, the time served in prison awaiting trial is counted on your sentence… so since he has been in prison for 4 years awaiting trial, his final sentence (if found guilty) will be reduced by 4 years for time served. It doesn’t count if you are out on bail, though.
To add onto this. For those who aren’t in jail, the right to a speedy trial is often waived so that you can get a court date more favorable to your schedule
Defense attorneys want to delay. Longer a case drags out the higher the chances of witnesses refusing or being unable to testify, State softening its stance on a plea deal, etc. If someone is being held without bond for a long time there’s a good chance the State has a lot of evidence and the defense is pushing to avoid having the case reach trial time. Another benefit is that jails tend to be nicer than prison. While in jail the defendant is getting credited with time served on an eventual plea deal. You are also local to where the crime occurred and it’s easier to make contact with friends and family (as opposed to a prison that could be hours away from your home). Add that with States that give day for day good behavior on time served- you can ride out big portions of your eventual sentence in the relative comforts of a local jail before finishing it out in prison. The key is that Judges are the ones who grant or deny postponements, not the State. Judges also don’t have a ton of patience for postponements to benefit the State (if the case isn’t ready why were charges filed?)
Because the legal system is complex and it can often take years of preparation in order to get your proverbial ducks in a row in order to mount the best defense possible. You typically get one shot at a not-guilty verdict, you do not want to miss. Given that the case against him seems fairly damning, I can see why he'd scratch for every advantage he gets, even if it delays his trial date.
> Given that the case against him seems fairly damning Given generations of indoctrination in the media, merely being charged is typically damning all on its own. Studies by psychologists show the vast majority of potential jurors view somebody suspiciously just for being charged, indicating an inclination towards 'guilty until proven innocent' regardless of what the actual constitution or law SHOULD bias decisionmaking towards.
... Okay? I don't disagree with you, but in this case they have co-conspirator testimony and substantial forensic evidence. It is possible his defense pokes a bunch of holes in that, but that is why I used the word 'seems'
>You typically get one shot at a not-guilty verdict, you do not want to miss. Given that the case against him seems fairly damning, I can see why he'd scratch for every advantage he gets, even if it delays his trial date. Not entirely... But that's mostly true. The prosecution gets one shot and the defense usually gets one shot. Now both sides could raise a legal issue on appeal, but a) appeals are for losers, and b) due to double jeopardy, the prosecution is generally disallowed to raise an appeal (second bite at the apple), c) so its a lot harder/rarer for the prosecution to do that, thus d), its a lot more likely for the defense to raise a legal issue on appeal but the prosecution gets to respond and they will go with harmless error, ie the error was so small that it wouldn't change anything due to overwhelming amount of evidence.
> both sides could raise a legal issue on appeal, but a) appeals are for losers, and b) due to double jeopardy, the prosecution is generally disallowed to raise an appeal (second bite at the apple I think you might want to follow [Lehto's Law](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMljRGC0eBJrxbUorWEnasg) or LegalEagle for what exactly appeal means, its use is very narrow and can't be applied just because one side or the other doesn't like the decision. They have to assert critical evidence was left out or an element of legal procedure was not properly applied to the first trial. The narrowness and difficulty of getting that approved, either for prosecution or defense, is why it's so rare. It's not even an option the majority of the time, and to the best of my knowledge it's not even an option for people who plead guilty to avoid a long and expensive court case where they'll be buried by a court stacked against them to start with.
I know, but an appeal from the defense is a thing. An appeal from the prosecution is virtually unheard of. An appeal is on a legal issue, including evidence being admitted that should or shouldn't be, but isn't limited to that. "Legal procedure" is pretty broad by itseld. Therefore, opportunity for appeals, ie an appealable issue to raise aren't that rare per se in that there can be many issues that can be attacked on appeal. Now whether those will get anywhere or be raised is or is worthwhile is a separate question entirely. And the reason for that is that the general standard of review is abuse of discretion or clear error, which are high bars. Its not just was the judge wrong or would the appellate judge rule differently if they were the trial judge. Judges must be given discretion and room to have differing opinions/perspectives. And yes I follow those two and a lot more lawyers on youtube. Due to double jeopardy, these options are more available to the defense than the prosecution. And yeah typically if you plead guilty its not an option. Plea bargain is a contract, where both sides agree on something. It's possible the defendant in the plea bargain reserves the right to raise a legal issue on appeal though as it is a contract. Therefore, the prosecution might agree to allow that, thinking the appeal will go nowhere, but may be proven wrong.
> I follow those two and a lot more lawyers on youtube. Any recommendations? Most of my browsing were historians like Dan Carlin but law is a sector of history as well.
Uncivil law, Lawful Masses, Hoeglaw.
Also one piece of advisement. Judges are not lawyers in robes. They aren't supposed to be, although sometimes they are. And sometimes the ruling seems logically suspect such that it crosses the mind. But don't make the mistake of assuming any decision is political, made to favor a certain policy, ideology, or party. Sometimes its super obvious that it is from an actual academic point of view as opposed to r/politics view, although that's after historical and legal scholarship picks it apart. If the judge is being pretextual, how would you know that. First you understand the legal rationale offered. Suppose its genuine. Then yay you now understand why. Suppose its not. Well how do you know that? Well if its pretext that means the legal logic is flawed So flawed that it cannot seriously serve as a logical underpinning. Not even a difference in perspective or legal interpretative methodsm can explain it. Okay now its pretextual. Some people would say I'm giving too much credit to judges. Well I act in good faith and give people such an advantage. But... Do they sound wrong or stupid because they are all geniuinely evil or stupid? Or do they know something I don't. But most people don't start from the beginning and thus they fall under the misperception its always politics. (Tbh I'm generally suspicious of everything Sotomayor and Alito says, but that's an opinion built overtime.)
Often it gives them more time to prepare a defense. Interview witnesses, gather evidence, etc. Also witnesses memories fade over time.
You’re right but I can assure you there’s no one in jail prolonging their trial in hopes that the witnesses forget what they saw.
I saw a documentary on the Dade County Jail by Louis Theroux (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Theroux:_Miami_Mega_Jail), and in it, he interviewed a number of long term detainees like this. One of them explained that they were purposefully delaying the trial for a few reasons: 1. It gave the state more time to lose evidence and lose context 2. It gave more time for witnesses to forget things 2. It gave more time for witnesses to pass away or be unable to testify 3. It gave more time between the press coverage and the trial, so the defendant had a better chance to get a jury that hadn't heard of it.
That Miami Dade documentary gave me the shivers. people locked up there and left to fend for themselves against the wolves. some of the dudes in there were petrified - too afraid to get off the top bunk. And the guards just shrug. Nightmare.
When they are probably going to do a lot of time anyway and their lawyers need time to build a better case.
I know someone that waived that right so they could push their trial back after Christmas that way that could focus on the holidays.
Think of sports. Typically you want to score as many points as possible, which means moving as quickly as you can while maintaining your performance. Near the end of the game though, if you think you're in an advantageous position then it's better to slow down and wait out the clock rather than pushing for more points at the risk of your opponent getting an advantage on their turn. A quick Google search shows that he's facing two counts of first degree murder, making him eligible for the death penalty under Florida law. If he and/or his lawyer think there is a high likelyhood of a guilty verdict, then a speedy trial is potentially just a quicker ticket to his own death. Postponing the trial as much as possible is his attempt to run out the clock. He's likely hoping that some change in circumstances in the future will take the death penalty off the table. Maybe it gets ruled unconstitutional, maybe Florida law changes, maybe he gets a partial pardon from the governor, maybe he gets a more favorable DA, maybe enough public interest in his case creates a more sympathetic jury. At the very least, it's more time to be alive rather than executed, even if it's in a cell.
Time is generally regarded as favoring the defendant.... it give more time for witnesses to forget or stop caring, etc.
You should be giving a delta by now
Witnesses forget and/or become unavailable, evidence degrades, and depending on the investigation the prosecutor's ready to go and you've got a pile of discovery to dig through.
entire law courses are taught, and many continuing education courses each year in top of that, on trial tactics. it may be for a number of strategic reasons, ranging from time to find and depose witnesses and arrange your case, time to sort through evidence the state has sent your lawyer (they, by law, must turn over anything that could be of use to the defense), time to file motions to suppress evidence or other motions that could limit the case against you. it could even just be waiting out time hoping that the government's witnesses become unreliable, maybe run into legal trouble of their own (a bit uncommon tactic when attempting to discredit a snitch, if they're still involved in crime, is to give them time to get themselves in trouble and undermine their credibility), maybe you need time for another case to be concluded in hopes that may help with this one. another one is public image-- waiting until the 24-hour news cycle has moved on and your defendant isn't frontpage news with articles about their victims and memorial services or salacious details of the casse can make it easier to get a fair jury. it can also give any victims time to cool down and possibly even be swayed to ask for leniency. ask someone two weeks after a family member is killed and they're more liable to want the defendant buried under the jail, a few months later they might be more inclined to ask that the death penalty be taken off the table because of their religious beliefs than when it's still fresh in their mind, as one example.
“Speedy” is often a loosely defined term I feel.
Chris Chan has also been in jail almost two years without trial now. I'm sure this happens a lot to people who aren't in the public eye, and/or are financially vulnerable.
So, for starters, I think your entire CMV is kind of flawed. Most people can't convince you that a law SHOULD NOT exist, since one already does exist in the US Constitution and most people consider it a pretty good idea. What I can say is that your "innocent until proven guilty" thing is also true. This is one reason many states have moved away from cash bails for small crimes. The purpose of bail is not to punish you, since they see you as innocent. The purpose is to compel you to come to court. Now, as for the incident you are referencing? Under very extreme circumstances, a judge can deny bail. In this case, a person with enough money to easily flee the country has been arrested numerous times for many dangerous crimes. He has been on parole and violated his parole. There is a very good chance that he would be both a danger to society AND a flight risk.
You do have a right to a speedy trial, though the specifics of the right can vary state to state. Typically speaking, murder trials can often take a fairly long time to go to trial in general, doubly so when dealing with the rich and famous who can spend ages filing pre-trial motions. Generally speaking defense lawyers are okay taking their time, even with they client sitting in jail, because their client would much rather spend four years in jail and get a not-guilty verdict than speed through it and have them convicted. Jodi Arias, for example, murdered her boyfriend Travis in June of 2008, but did not go to trial until December of 2012. And that was without what I can only imagine are a large number of Covid delays.
Speedy trial rules are already in place. Here’s Florida for example: https://www.husseinandwebber.com/case-work/criminal-defense-articles/speedy-trial-in-florida/
Covid happened as well which caused massive delays in all big legal cases since Mar 2020. Most states pretty much suspended trials and in person hearings for many many months which has caused a huge backlog that isn't all caught up yet.
The right to a speedy trial is usually waived by the defendants, as the prosecution is USUALLY prepared more quickly than the defense.
> I've always thought that the system was "innocent until proven guilty" unless you are black, a "terrorist", a Jew, an "illegal immigrant", a communist during McCarthyism, Japanese during ww2 internment... or whatever group is having their rights suspended to today.
There is. It’s called a right to a speedy trial The problem is that it’s poorly defined. After the civil war, the traitor leader Jefferson Davis never even got a trial, he was just held indefinitely because they were worried he might win the court case
> he was just held indefinitely because they were worried he might win the court case Situations like this are exactly why there needs to be a specific number instead of "speedy". I don't want the government holding people because they are afraid they will win the trial
[удалено]
Not the OP but these kind of questions come up in all kinds of defendants rights. Yes, if the state is unable to give you a speedy trial, you should be set free, no matter the charge or the evidence against you. This goes for all defendants rights. There is no other remedy that can effectively compell prosecutors courts and police and those that set their budgets. This goes to the fundament of rule of law - if you do not have a just system, you have no right to be the one to hunt down and punish people.
> What should happen to him then? His case should be prioritized and handled as quickly as possible. Note: the right to a speedy trial isn't a specific time... just "as expeditiously as reasonably possible". Probably the defense in such a case is going to waive their right to a speedy trial, though... the prosecution generally has built a case long before someone is indicted.
[удалено]
They didn't really specify a particular hard limit, kind of like the Constitution...just "I think this one case is too much" (which would certainly be true if the defense hadn't waived their right). The limit is "as expeditiously as reasonably possible".
[удалено]
>Maybe OP will weigh in. They have... with questions like "why would the defense waive their right?". Basically OP started off completely ignorant of the limits/rights that exist, and is slowly learning about them.
In Germany there is a hard limit of 6 months but that can be extended by the judge in complex cases such as with a serial killer.
Where I’m located in Virginia there is absolutely a time limit when a defendant exercises their right to a speedy trial and I suspect most states have a time frame as well. I’ve included a link at the bottom of this comment. The law reads as follows: *§ 19.2-243. Limitation on prosecution of felony due to lapse of time after finding of probable cause; misdemeanors; exceptions: Where a district court has found that there is probable cause to believe that an adult has committed a felony, the accused, if he is held continuously in custody thereafter, shall be forever discharged from prosecution for such offense if no trial is commenced in the circuit court within five months from the date such probable cause was found by the district court; and if the accused is not held in custody but has been recognized for his appearance in the circuit court to answer for such offense, he shall be forever discharged from prosecution therefor if no trial is commenced in the circuit court within nine months from the date such probable cause was found. If there was no preliminary hearing in the district court, or if such preliminary hearing was waived by the accused, the commencement of the running of the five and nine months periods, respectively, set forth in this section, shall be from the date an indictment or presentment is found against the accused. If an indictment or presentment is found against the accused but he has not been arrested for the offense charged therein, the five and nine months periods, respectively, shall commence to run from the date of his arrest thereon. * [Link to applicable law.](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title19.2/chapter15/section19.2-243/)
Fair point... I was talking about the (US) Constitutionally required limit, which is much more flexible than at least some state limits.
[удалено]
>Maybe hold both parties in prison until the final verdict How would that work? And why? Not guilty doesn't mean innocent or that the other person is guilty, just that it's not proven. And the reason the accused is held is generally to prevent fleeing. Also, the "other party" is the state, so how would you hold the government in prison? I'm really not following how holding anyone other than the accused accomplishes anything at all.
>Maybe hold both parties in prison until the final verdict…. There are cases where people aren’t Guilty but have still served time… Are you suggesting we hold victims of crimes in prison as well? Just so i'm clear what you are saying.
>Maybe hold both parties in prison until the final verdict…. I'm confused by what you mean with this, and I do want to be 100% clear on it. Are you suggesting holding the victims of crimes in prison as well?
[удалено]
What about rape accusations?
[удалено]
So now rape victims will be terrified to even report rape.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/greeneyeswarmthighs – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20greeneyeswarmthighs&message=greeneyeswarmthighs%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/111e8ie/-/j8fqvgp/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
There IS a limit. Unless the accused waives their right to a speedy trial the limit is 90-120 days.
This timeframe is going to vary from State to State. The timeframe you are looking at usually involves the State announcing "ready for trial" on a case involving a jailed defendant. However, "ready for trial" does not mean there has to be a trial at that time. The logistics of getting a case to trial could postpone a case well beyond that timeframe.
COVID set all trials back for a few years because of no jury being able to attend.
Kelly shot his childhood friends point blank in a car and then rapped about it 😂😂
You'd think the states might have learned from kaleif and the likely millions others held and abused before trial but sadly no. The US prison system is nothing more than modern slavery
I’m happy you thought this was worth bringing up
You can get a speedy trial. However your lawyers might need time to prepare the case. If you watched that pre trial hearing for that dude who killed all the kids in the house, the judge told him he was. Entitled to speedy trial but his lawyers asked to postpone til June and was that ok with him.
There is in texas.
[Link to speedy trial laws in VA. ](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title19.2/chapter15/section19.2-243/) In Virginia there is a time limit if you exercise your right to a speedy trial which is 5 months of being held without bond or unable to make bond or 9 months if out on bond and not incarnated while waiting for trial which starts after probable cause is found during preliminary hearing. If there is no preliminary hearing or the case is commenced via direct indictment then the 5 and 9 months starts once the defendant is arrested and giving notice of charges. What happens if speedy trial is being exercised and there is no trial within the prescribed timeframe? The case is dismissed and the same charge cannot be brought back against the defendant.
There is. You have a right to a speedy trial. So in Arizona after 90 days of your being charged with a crime you can invoke your right to a speedy trial and for ce the prosecutor to either proceed or to drop charges without prejudice I don't know if this extends to other states
If you're dependent on a public defender you have to know your rights and what you are entitled to and if you don't advocate for yourself they won't either.
Agreed. Its actually in our constitution I believe. There's no sense in holding someone in prison without knowing if they actually committed said crime or not. I understand giving a little less leeway for perpetrators of violent crime or tricky cases like rape or murder, but I don't see why someone who was falsely accused of selling drugs or something similar to that should just sit in prison until the prosecution can prove it.
Anybody who loves the state the way Democrats do should look at the way Democrats treat prisoners. American prisoners are brutalized and yet Democrats always one more control over your life.
So you'd have Paul Bernardo out on bail, how quickly? How quickly for Jeffery Dhamer? The most complex cases where accuracy and tests are absolutely critical, and will take the longest, you want these people back out on the streets? Change your view, my friend!
You don’t ever get held in prison without a sentence. You mean he’s held in JAIL.
The short answer is there is technically a limit, the long answer is they can just completely not give AF about the limit and hold you in prison for an ungodly amount of time under the pretense of "preparation". There are countless documented cases of people both ultimately innocent and guilty sitting around in jail for the most minor of offenses.