Sad update:
Another article from the New Yorker: Kalief Browder, 1993–2015 | The New Yorker
The one I used last month to get a relative out was only 8%.
ETA: I just saw the update. That’s very sad. Poor kid.
Consider yourself lucky, I know plenty of families where no matter how much someone wants to help they can’t forego rent and groceries for two months so they can.
Did he have mental health issues before going into solitary for two years?
In Virginia, a trial must commence within five months of imprisonment, and nine months if the accused is free on bond.
But those times can increase, as discussed above, the any portion of the delay is chargeable to the accused. In other words, the accused can’t file a motion that takes a month to get heard and then point out that now there’s only four months left to try him. So basically, any period in which the defense is not ready for trial and the prosecution is, or any period of delay occasioned by a defense motion, counts against the defense.
I’ve been following this story with dismay. I’d like to know why Bowder was held so long without trial, beyond the speculation here and elsewhere that he drove the delays himself. None of the news coverage talks much about this. Also, why did he spend so much time in solitary? Was he a problem inmate or did the guards just dislike him?
Bricker’s point is well taken. However, I remember reading about New York’s “stop-and-frisk” program where the statute time limits for a speedy trial were routinely exceeded. I can’t find the article, but here’s a … monograph … for the lack of better term, that talks about the issue. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/jlsp/pdf/Spring2015/Hamburg.pdf
Excerpts:
And nobody can make them change now unless there is a mass uprising which won’t happen because they might be inconvenienced. Nobody but close relatives possibly care and some of then don’t
It is getting worse country wide and I see no way to turn back the tide.
Most claim "It can’t happen here, the people won’t let it…
Bawahahaha
New York has a bizarre rule in which the prosecution simply has to claim they are ready for trial, and that stops the speedy trial clock, even though the actual trial doesn’t happen for months.
The rule is [here](A motion made pursuant to subdivisions one or two upon expiration of the specified period may be denied where the people are not ready for trial if the people were ready for trial prior to the expiration of the specified period and their present unreadiness is due to some exceptional fact or circumstance, including, but not limited to, the sudden unavailability of evidence material to the people’s case, when the district attorney has exercised due diligence to obtain such evidence and there are reasonable grounds to believe that such evidence will become available in a reasonable period.). Historically, the issue raised by Bricker was not a problem since the courts were generally ready to try the case when the state was. However, in the Bronx and elsewhere the dockets are overflowing so the court will not set a trial date quickly once the state announces it is ready to proceed. By the time it does, the prosecutor’s office will no longer be ready and the whole process starts over.
Browder seems to have been totally blameless in all this.
The link didn’t work for me. If the prosecution says “we’re ready” but there is no slot available, would that delay count against the defense? Wouldn’t the defense say “OK, we’re ready” and then request habeus corpus if there was no time on the docket within the time limit?
Regards,
Shodan
That’s because the link was blank. Oops. Here it is.
In theory, a delay caused by lack of judicial resources (that is, the court not having any time on its calendar) can be the basis of a speedy trial dismissal. In practice, I don’t think it ever actually happens.
OK, well why not?
Bricker can probably answer that one better than I could. I would guess that (1) delays by the court are looked at differently from delays by the state as prosecutor, and (2) they’re worried about the long term implications in other jurisdictions with too many cases to try.
Why should anyone care how they look at it or what they’re worried about? If the accused has a right to a speedy trial, these things shouldn’t be considerations, I would have thought.
Judge: “Is the defense ready?”
Defense: “Yes, Your Honor.”
Judge: “Is the state ready?”
Prosecutor: “Yes, Your Honor.”
Judge: “Fine. Trial is set 180 days from now.”
180 days pass
Judge: "Is the defense ready?’
Defense: “Yes, Your Honor.”
Judge: “Is the state ready?”
Prosecutor: “No, Your Honor, now we’re not ready.”
Defense: “Move to dismiss since the 180 day limit is past.”
What does the judge say then? Does he just ignore the law? Does he say “I’ll release you on your own recognizance if you waive your right to a speedy trial?”
Doesn’t anyone appeal a conviction if they have dated copies of the motion to dismiss they filed on day 181? What does the appeals court say?
I can’t shake the feeling that there is something more going on than just an overloaded Bronx docket and no defense attorney remembers to file a motion to dismiss.
Regards,
Shodan
There is something else going on – an element of gaming the system by the prosecution.
To continue your dialog:
Judge: "Is the defense ready?’
Defense: “Yes, Your Honor.”
Judge: “Is the state ready?”
Prosecutor: “No, Your Honor, now we’re not ready.”
Defense: “Move to dismiss since the 180 day limit is past.”
Prosecutor: “Objection, your honor. We were ready for trial until last week. Only seven days of the time is chargeable to us.”
The Court: “Mr. Defense, your motion is denied. The court finds that there are 173 days to go before the speedy trial rule is triggered. Let’s set a status hearing for two months from now.”
(Next day, in a written filing: The Prosecution is now ready for trial.)
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Bricker,
ISTM that the premise of your post is that the defendant’s right to a speedy trial is only a right vis-a-vis the prosecution, and not a general right. Meaning, suppose the prosecution is in fact completely ready and is not gaming the system, and the court is not ready for 10 years. Is the defendant out of luck? Because if not, then the gaming you describe wouldn’t work (as all time should be “chargeable” regardless of whether the prosecution is ready). If so, this is the core of the problem, IMO.
On another note, do you think the prosecution is (typically) lying when they claim to be “now ready for trial” and gambling that the overloaded court won’t call their bluff?
At a minimum, defendants on minor charges (stealing a backpack?? Did it contain the Hope Diamond???) should be released without need for bail once the 6-month deadline passes. This is too obvious for words.
The story of Kalief Browder is horrifying and shameful.
Bricker - what F-P says. Why doesn’t the time that passes while the court is not ready count against the right to a speedy trial?
One of the rights of the accused is that he must be provided with a speedy trial. Obviously the court is obligated to honor that right, since the resources of the court system are the sine qua non of a public trial. I don’t see why lack of resources is an excuse that applies to the courts.
"We don’t have any funds for public defenders, so you just will have to do without an attorney. " I don’t think that would fly either.
Regards,
Shodan