Supreme Court: Waiting 7 years for a trial is speedy enough

[rambone]

SCOTUS recently decided that a person can be locked up for 7+ years without it being a violation of the 6th Amendment guarantee of speedy public trials. All a state has to do is claim it doesn't have the money to give you a trial and they can apparently get away with this indefinitely.

All of the Republicans sided with indefinite detention in the 5-4 decision.

Decision: Boyer v. Louisiana


Do Louisianans Have the Right to a Speedy Trial? | The Atlantic

The Court “DIGs” in Boyer v. Louisiana – and sometimes silence can speak volumes | SCOTUS Blog

 

[zippy23]

just another step in the direction of tryanny.

 

[jbombelli]

Who needs a trial if they can imprison you for years without one? Why even bother? You might LOSE if you actually go to trial. Or end up with a smaller prison term at sentencing.

 

[level.eleven]

"Conditions of this kind cannot persist without endangering constitutional rights."

That is a wise latina!

 

[Bunnykid68]

Our government officials would never do such a thing.

 

[sgtonory]

Why do we even care what the supreme court has to say? There just a bunch of ****s in black robes.

 

[level.eleven]

Our government officials would never do such a thing.

To be fair, this is a state problem. Louisiana.

The statistics in that article were grim. I don't know about Indiana.

 

[Fargo]

To be fair, this is a state problem. Louisiana.

The statistics in that article were grim. I don't know about Indiana.

Indiana has Criminal Rule 4 which guarantees speedy trial rights. As any delay attributable to the court counts toward that time constraint, discharge probably would have been granted IF THE DELAYS WERE ACTUALLY FROM FAILURE TO PROVIDE COUNSEL.

The dismissal of the Louisiana case was because the court found that it had granted cert based upon an erroneous record and that the vast majority of the delay was at the defense request or with defense consent. This is grossly different from what this is being characterized as.

To paraphrase Inigo Montoya:

"This case, I do not think it means what you think it means..."

Best,


Joe

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Oh, good, the timing on this is actually perfect.

Just this afternoon I was wondering what it would be like to live in a third-world totalitarian State, and here comes the Supremes showing me exactly what it will be like! This really is just perfect timing.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

"Conditions of this kind cannot persist without endangering constitutional rights."

That is a wise latina!

Even a broken clock is right twice per day.

Let's see her give our innate right to bear arms the same weight and merit and credit.

What amazes me most about the leftist side of the spectrum is the notion that one can simply pick and choose which rights are not to be infringed. That it's not all-or-nothing, but simply an a la carte menu. Bewildering.

 

[rambone]

What amazes me most about the leftist side of the spectrum is the notion that one can simply pick and choose which rights are not to be infringed. That it's not all-or-nothing, but simply an a la carte menu. Bewildering.

Are you sure that's only true of one side?

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Are you sure that's only true of one side?

Don't know, haven't met everyone in the world yet.

 

[Expat]

This is grossly different from what this is being characterized as.


Joe

This is a rambone thread after all, are they ever anything else.

 

[steveh_131]

Indiana has Criminal Rule 4 which guarantees speedy trial rights. As any delay attributable to the court counts toward that time constraint, discharge probably would have been granted IF THE DELAYS WERE ACTUALLY FROM FAILURE TO PROVIDE COUNSEL.

The dismissal of the Louisiana case was because the court found that it had granted cert based upon an erroneous record and that the vast majority of the delay was at the defense request or with defense consent. This is grossly different from what this is being characterized as.

To paraphrase Inigo Montoya:

"This case, I do not think it means what you think it means..."

Best,


Joe

Several of the justices who reviewed the actual case disagreed with this assessment.

Who is right and who is wrong?

How many years is acceptable for the state to delay trial without the consent of the defense? How many years did his defense actually cost him?

The dissenting justices thought that the majority had too hastily analyzed the case.

 

[Hoosier8]

From the case.

And as noted, most of this delay was caused by the many defense requests for continuances of
hearings on the issue of funding. If the defense had not
sought and obtained those continuances, the trial might
well have commenced at a much earlier date—and might
have reached a conclusion far less favorable to the
defense.

We have before us the same record that was before the
Court of Appeals, and the record simply does not support
the proposition that much—let alone “most”—of the delay
was caused by the State’s failure to fund the defense.
Having taken up this case on the basis of a mistaken
factual premise, I agree with the Court’s decision to dis
-
miss the writ as improvidently granted.

 

[Fargo]

Several of the justices who reviewed the actual case disagreed with this assessment.

Who is right and who is wrong?

Therein is the rub, they were assessing whether the delays were attributable to the defense, NOT WHETHER THE DELAYS COULD BE JUSTIFIED IF ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE STATE.

They never assessed or considered the issue everyone is in a lather about on this because a majority of the justices didn't find it to even be present in the case.

How many years is acceptable for the state to delay trial without the consent of the defense?

In Indiana it is 1 year if not incarcerated, 180 days if incarcerated, and 70 days if a speedy trial is requested. Most cases drag on much longer because delay is almost always favorable to the defense...

The dissenting justices thought that the majority had too hastily analyzed the case.

Be that as it may, the analysis they questioned was not the one everyone in this thread is wrapped up about. The analysis in question was of the record on who the delay was attributable. A majority found that most of it was defense delay.

They never even freaking considered what amount of state delay would be acceptable as they found it not to be an issue on the facts. The "cases and controversies" clause of the U.S. Constitution requires to the actually be an issue present before the federal courts have jurisdiction to consider it. According to the majority, there was no such issue present so the court wouldn't even have jurisdiction to hear it.


Joe

 

[GunnerDan]

SCOTUS are nothing more than a bunch of political hacks, they cant be trusted anymore just like the rest of the tyrants in the FEDGOV...

Gunner

 

[IndyDave1776]

SCOTUS are nothing more than a bunch of political hacks, they cant be trusted anymore just like the rest of the tyrants in the FEDGOV...

Gunner

You mean the same people who decided that a fee which was specifically designated as NOT being a tax really is a tax except when it is a fee?

 

[GunnerDan]

You mean the same people who decided that a fee which was specifically designated as NOT being a tax really is a tax except when it is a fee?

Strange isnt it... Oh wait no it isnt strange as I said they are nothing more than a group of political hacks that care nothing about the Constitution. I mean wickard v. filburn proved that.

Gunner

 

[Kirk Freeman]

They never even freaking considered what amount of state delay would be acceptable as they found it not to be an issue on the facts. The "cases and controversies" clause of the U.S. Constitution requires to the actually be an issue present before the federal courts have jurisdiction to consider it. According to the majority, there was no such issue present so the court wouldn't even have jurisdiction to hear it.

I hereby proclaim the Fargo Rule: those that are "outraged" by "unconstitutional actions" of the government must actually read the Constitution.

What is a four letter word for ultracrepidarian? Oh, yeah, INGO.