Federal Criminal Defense Attorney & Speedy Trial
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys rarely invoke but know Speedy Trial Rights. Here, this federal criminal defense asserts that speedy trial rights were violated.
The United States Constitution provides persons certain rights, the fifth amendment and sixth amendment to the United States constitution are particularly important when one is accused of a crime. The Court here reviews the law applicable to federal criminal defense matters, here federal criminal speedy trial:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy. . . trial." U.S. Const. amend VI. There are exceptions to the Speedy trial right, and one must keep in mind both the the constitutional and statutory right to a speedy trial, albeit the "Sixth Amendment guarantee 'is designed to minimize the possibility of lengthy incarceration prior to trial, to reduce the lesser, but nevertheless substantial, impairment of liberty imposed on an accused while released on bail, and to shorten the disruption of life caused by arrest and the presence of unresolved criminal charges.' " United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1, 8, 102 S. Ct. 1497, 71 L. Ed. 2d 696 (1982)
When it is invoked, the United States District Court is required to undertake an analysis, pursuant to the Supreme Court precedent Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 519-20, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 33 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1972, with this challenge, as to the length of the delay, reasons for the delay, defendant's assertion of the right and prejudice to the defendant
The Speedy Trial Act requires the government to bring criminal defendants to trial within 70 days of their first appearance before a judicial officer or the filing of an indictment, whichever is later. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (c)(1); see also United States v. Oberoi, 295 F. Supp. 2d 286, 289 (W.D.N.Y. 2003). In the event the defendant is not brought to trial within the 70 prescribed days, the indictment Ashall be dismissed on motion of the defendant." 18 U.S.C. § 3162 (a)(2). On such a motion, the defendant bears the burden of proving a Speedy Trial Act violation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3162 (a)(2) (providing that "[t]he defendant shall have the burden of proof of supporting such motion but the Government shall have the burden of going forward with the evidence in connection with any exclusion of time under subparagraph 3161 (h)(3)"); United States v. Adams, 448 F.3d 492, 503 (2d Cir. 2006).
Speedy trial is not just for the federal criminal defendant, it is for the public and "the government and the court share the burden of bringing criminal cases to trial promptly" as the Honorable Judge William M. Skretney eloquently states:
Speedy trials limit an accused's ability to leverage a court's backlog of cases to obtain a more advantageous plea resolution; protect the community by reducing a non-detained accused's opportunity to commit other crimes; shorten the time available to abscond; increase the opportunity for effective rehabilitation by minimizing delay between arrest and punishment; and reduce the expense and overcrowding concerns attendant to pretrial incarceration.
The case is United States v. TUFINO, No. 20-CR-81S (W.D.N.Y. May 5, 2021), decided on the Cinqo De Mayo, where the Honorable Judge William M. Skretney concluded that "Here, Tufino has failed to meet his burden. The record reflects that since the filing of the criminal complaint on March 4, 2019, and the subsequent filing of the indictment on June 9, 2020, the court has properly excluded time under the Speedy Trial Act. "
Cory H. Morris, Esq. New York and Florida, Injury, Addiction, Accident, Call the Law Offices of Cory H. Morris, 631-450-2515 (NYS) (954) 998-2918 (FLA).