![]() Second, the Court stated that deprivation of the right to a speedy trial may benefit the accused. Societal concerns include: the backlog of cases in many urban courts which enable defendants to negotiate pleas to lesser offenses accused persons released on bond for extended lengths of time (thus having opportunities to commit more offenses) the temptation to jump bail a detrimental effect on offender rehabilitation the dangers of overcrowding in jails and, with regards to persons who could not make bail, economic concerns including the cost of holding people for a lengthy time, as well as lost wages for those who may have been arrested. First, the Court argued that there is a societal interest in providing a speedy trial which is separate from, and sometimes conflicts with, the interests of the accused. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and the Court explained the difference between speedy trial and the other Constitutional rights. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. Barker sought habeas corpus relief in district court, by arguing that the long trial delay violated his right to a speedy trial, which the district court denied. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. At his trial beginning on October 9, 1963, Barker was convicted. Barker’s trial was set for March 19, 1963, and when the state requested further continuances, Barker unsuccessfully objected. Beginning in June 1959, Barker was out of prison on bail, and did not contest the continuances. ![]() The state obtained a series of continuances on Barker’s trial, as Manning was tried five times and finally convicted in 1962. Barker’s trial was scheduled to begin on September 21, but the state believed it had a stronger case against Manning and that Manning’s testimony would be essential to convict Barker. Both were indicted on September 15 and assigned counsel on September 17. Shortly afterward, police arrested Silas Manning and Willie Barker for the crime. 514 (1972). On July 20, 1958, intruders beat an elderly couple to death in Christian County, Kentucky. The seminal case in speedy trial jurisprudence is Barker v. Charges may be dismissed with or without prejudice.Courts must weigh the four Barker factors.Right to a speedy trial is triggered by arrest, indictment or other formal accusation.Speedy trial also exists to, “limit the possibility that memories will fade, witnesses disappear, and needless delay impair an accused's ability to defend himself.” It may also be implicated in forfeitures. Nevertheless, speedy trial rights are generally designed to protect the accused from: 1) oppressive pretrial incarceration, 2) anxiety and concern accompanying public accusation, and 3) impairment to the accused’s defense. ![]() Indeed there is a, “societal interest in providing a speedy trial which exists separate from, and at times in opposition to, the interests of the accused.” Specifically, the right to a speedy trial serves a societal interest in the fair and efficient operation of the criminal justice system and in limiting the costs to the community of pretrial detention and its deleterious effects. One of the reasons the speedy trial right is perceived as one of the more elusive constitutional protections is because it serves interests beyond those of the accused. Though the right to a speedy trial has been deemed “fundamental,” it has also been described as “amorphous” and “slippery.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |