It wouldn’t. But there’s something approaching a separation of powers issue here. When a court orders the state to provide a defendant with an attorney, it is essentially ordering the executive to do it. It can do that. When the court orders a case dismissed because of its own speedy trial violation, it is essentially telling the legislature that it needs more funding. It can’t do that.
It’s fairly common for rights to be enforceable against one segment of the government but not another (or not private parties.)
Another thing to consider is the effect of a speedy trial violation: it exonerates the defendant without a hearing on the merits. Courts don’t like to do that, which is why they are loath to apply the exclusionary rule for Fourth Amendment violations too.
This reminds me of something: In recent years, in California, there has been a longstanding fight between federal judges and the state over prison overcrowding. Basically, the judges have said that in order to relieve overcrowding, the state needs to either build more prisons or release prisoners. The state is reluctant to do either, but their hand is being forced by the courts.
Similarly, I can see this issue building to the point where judges will decide that more courtrooms must be funded or defendants will have to be released before trial.
I don’t see why that is so. How is dismissing a case because of over-crowded dockets different from dismissing a case because of judicial corruption or incompetence?
Again, I don’t get it. Why should the Constitutional right to a speedy and public trial not apply to the judicial branch? I would have thought it would apply especially to them. Trials are what the judicial branch does.
I’m sure the courts don’t like to exclude evidence that shows a defendent to be obviously guilty, but they do that sometimes.
Why would it make any difference which branch of government violates a defendent’s Fourth Amendment rights? The Constitution says Congress can’t violate freedom of speech, but that doesn’t mean the President can.
I am as “law and order” as the next guy, but “we just don’t have the resources to protect your rights” doesn’t sound kosher to me. And I can’t believe that some enterprising defense attorney hasn’t pursued this hard enough to get past “well, the courts just don’t do anything”. I thought that is what habeus corpus was for.
Delay because of court calendars is attributable to the prosecutor, even if the prosecutor is ready to go. See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). I don’t know what other factors were at play here, but that’s the foundational rule.
It’s worth noting that this case is tragic in part for the period of pre-trial confinement, but in equal part for how terribly he was treated there–beaten and thrown into solitary.
I am not saying I agree with any of this. As far as I’m concerned, the right to a speedy trial should be enforceable against every branch. I’m just saying that’s how the courts see it.
In a case involving judicial corruption or incompetence, the remedy is usually retrial or appeal.
ETA: Richard, where do you get that rule from Barker? That trial was delayed by the prosecution.
Many subsequent cases have applied this rule to charge the government for delays, including for the delay caused by inadequately funding the public defender’s office.