Your Constitutional Right to a Speedy Trial
Once upon a time, a defendant accused of a crime could languish in a dungeon or prison for years before they were tried for their crime. Our federal constitution changed that. The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental constitutional guarantee designed to protect individuals accused of crimes from unnecessary and prolonged delays in the legal process. In Oklahoma, as in other states, this right is enshrined in both the U.S. Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution. This article outlines this constitutional right and its implications for defendants in Oklahoma.
Constitutional Basis for the Right to a Speedy Trial
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial…” Article II, Section 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution similarly provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has the right to a speedy and public trial.
Purposes of the Right to a Speedy Trial
This right has several purposes. The most important and obvious purpose is to prevent prolonged detention without a trial. This reduces the stress, anxiety, and public scrutiny faced by accused individuals awaiting trial. It also ensures that evidence remains fresh and that witnesses’ memories are clear, thereby maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
Factors Considered in Speedy Trial Claims
This issue arises in the context of criminal cases. Once a person is arrested and formally charged with a crime, the right to a speedy trial is triggered. The clock starts ticking from the point of arrest or formal accusation/indictment, whichever occurs first.
For defendants who are held in custody awaiting trial, the right to a speedy trial is particularly important. Extended pretrial detention without a timely trial can lead to undue hardship and affect the defendant’s ability to prepare a defense. However, even if the defendant is out on bail, the right to a speedy trial ensures that the case proceeds without unnecessary delays, minimizing the period of uncertainty and stress.
When your right to a speedy trial has been violated, you and your attorney can file pretrial motions to dismiss the charges against you. Each request for a continuance has the ability to negatively impact the right to a speedy trial. Winning a motion to dismiss involves demonstrating undue delay and prejudice resulting from the delay.
Undue Delay and Prejudice
The determination of whether the right to a speedy trial has been violated is based on a balancing test established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo (1972). Oklahoma courts also follow this test, considering four primary factors: the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of the right, and the prejudice to the defendant.
The delay must be of a duration that is considered presumptively prejudicial in order to prevail on your motion. Longer delays are more likely to allow a defendant to prevail. In looking at delays, courts examine the reasons for the delay. Delays caused by the prosecution, or the judicial system weigh against the state, while delays caused by the defense typically do not count against the right to a speedy trial.
The court also considers whether and how vigorously the defendant asserted their right to a speedy trial. Asserting the right is important and the failure to assert the right can weaken a defendant’s claim of violation.
Finally, the court evaluates the extent to which you, as a defendant, have been prejudiced by the delay. This includes considerations of oppressive pretrial incarceration, the anxiety and concern experienced by the defendant, and the potential impairment by the delay on the defense.
Practical Implications in Oklahoma for the Defendant and the Prosecution
Oklahoma law includes specific statutory guidelines regarding how and when to bring a defendant to trial. For example, if a person is not brought to trial within a certain period after the charge, usually one year for felony cases, they may be entitled to dismissal of the charges. (Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 812.1).
This has implications for defendants held in jail while awaiting trial. It also has implications for continuances requested by the prosecution. Prosecutors must be prepared for trial as early in the process as possible. However, the defense may request continuances without impeding the right to a speedy trial.
When court dockets are backlogged, this balancing can be especially important. Courts in Oklahoma must balance the right to a speedy trial with the practical constraints of court schedules, caseloads, and availability of resources. However, this congestion cannot prejudice the defendant’s rights without consequences.
If a court determines that a defendant’s right to a speedy trial has been violated, the typical remedy is the dismissal of charges. This dismissal is with prejudice, meaning the charges cannot be refiled, thereby providing a strong incentive for the state to prosecute cases in a timely manner.
Examples of Right to Speedy Trial Cases in Oklahoma
The right to a speedy trial in Oklahoma has been the subject of numerous court cases, where courts have evaluated whether delays in the prosecution process violated the constitutional rights of the defendants. Here are some notable examples of those cases.
In State v. Blount (1991), James Blount was charged with various offenses, including armed robbery and kidnapping. His trial was delayed multiple times due to continuances requested by both the defense and the prosecution. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found that the delays, including those requested by the defense, were justified and did not violate Blount’s right to a speedy trial. The case was complex and there was a greater need to gather evidence requiring the postponements.
In Smith v. State (2007), John Smith was arrested and charged with burglary. His trial was delayed for over four years due to repeated continuances requested by the prosecution and administrative issues within the court system. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found that Smith’s right to a speedy trial had been violated. The extensive delays were primarily due to the prosecution’s lack of diligence and administrative inefficiencies, which could not justify the prolonged delay.
The right to a speedy trial is an important constitutional right. If you have questions about how this right has played out in your case, consult with a Tulsa criminal law attorney as soon as possible.
Consult with a Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney
The right to a speedy trial can work in your favor, especially when it is violated. Your attorney can help you understand what to do if you feel this fundamental right has been violated. Consult with a Tulsa criminal defense attorney at the Tulsa Criminal Defense Law Firm. Call today at 918-256-3400. We can provide personalized guidance based on your unique situation.
We are dedicated to providing reliable legal advice and representing clients throughout the criminal process. Together, we can navigate the complexities of the criminal court process and work towards a positive outcome.