6 results for 'cat:"Speedy Trial" AND cat:"Due Process"'.
J. Stephens finds that the lower court improperly reversed defendant's murder conviction. The lower court found that because the state wrongfully delayed bringing charges against defendant, the resulting loss of key witness testimony violated defendant's due process rights. While the state was negligent in its delay, there is no proof that that defendant suffered any prejudice from the loss of witness testimony. Reversed.
Court: Washington Supreme Court, Judge: Stephens, Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: 101502-0, Categories: Murder, speedy Trial, due Process
J. Cassel finds the trial court properly overruled defendant's motion for absolute discharge of his felony offense on speedy trial grounds. Though defendant contends his waiver of speedy trial rights applies only to a continuance granted solely at the request of the defendant and not the state, this argument has no merit. Affirmed.
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court, Judge: Cassel , Filed On: February 23, 2024, Case #: S-23-356, Categories: speedy Trial, due Process
J. McGrath finds the district court improperly upheld the justice court’s denial of a woman’s motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial when she was charged with six misdemeanor traffic violations. This court holds the state failed to demonstrate good cause for the delay after the woman’s trial was held without her present. Reversed.
Court: Montana Supreme Court, Judge: McGrath, Filed On: February 20, 2024, Case #: DA 21-0645, Categories: speedy Trial, due Process, Civil Rights
J. Alley finds a lower court did not err in convicting defendant of capital murder after defendant — who was arrested in early 2018 but not tried until late 2022 — invoked his right to a speedy trial. While the delay here was indeed “extraordinary” and “should be the rare exception and not the rule,” much of the delay “stemmed from factors outside anyone’s control,” including disruptions from the Covid pandemic, and defendant did not raise his speedy trial right until 2022. Furthermore, much of the stress faced by defendant was caused not by delays but by the seriousness of the charges against him, which involved killing two people, including a minor. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Alley, Filed On: January 31, 2024, Case #: 08-23-00026-CR, Categories: Constitution, speedy Trial, due Process
J. Kruger finds that a sex offender's due process rights have not been violated even though a trial on a petition to indefinitely recommit him to the state hospital as a sexually violent predator has been pending since 2007. Constitutional speedy trial rights apply to petitions to recommit sex offenders under the Sexually Violent Predator Act, but a trial has not yet been held on a petition to recommit the offender that was filed in 2007.
The length of the delay indicates that both the state and the trial court should have worked harder to ensure the offender's due process right to a timely trial. But the offender did not demonstrate that he sought a trial on the petition before 2018 or that he suffered prejudice by the delay. Affirmed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Kruger, Filed On: August 31, 2023, Case #: S273391, Categories: Sex Offender, speedy Trial, due Process
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Bishop finds the trial court properly denied the sexual assault defendant’s motion for absolute discharge. The pendency of defendant’s motion for discovery made before the filing of the information tolled the running of the statutory speedy trial period. Relevant statute dictates the exclusion of all time between defendant’s filing of a pretrial motion and the final disposition on that motion, regardless of the promptness or reasonableness of the delay of disposition. Affirmed.
Court: Nebraska Court Of Appeals, Judge: Bishop, Filed On: August 22, 2023, Case #: A-22-861, Categories: Sex Offender, speedy Trial, due Process