Especially in a high-profile trial like Scott Petersons. The guy is innocent for now, but over forty percent of respondents in a recent poll say he’s guilty of double homicige. I think he did it too, but not beyond a reasonable doubt.
So if in the unliktly event that the prosecution decides they just don’t have enough evidence to convict, and don’t go to trial, can the defense demand a trial anyway? With a innocent verdict, Peterson’s life is in the toilet. Without that verdict, but on the street, Not only is his life in the toilet but also (probably) in grave danger from some “hero”.
It is within the realm of possibility that Scott Peterson did not kill Laci and the baby.
Peace,
mangeorge
The US Constitution guarantees a right to a speedy trial. Of course, ‘speedy’ is open to some debate. However, once you are accused of a crime (i.e. arrested for it) then the ball starts rolling. If the prosecution wants more time to make their case then tough luck. In the court’s eyes the state shouldn’t bother arresting you till they feel they have their case generally made. As a result it is usually the defense that asks for extra time. The prosecution is mostly ready to roll upon arrest…it takes time for the defense to build its case. Of course at some point the court will tell the defense its time to go if they delay too long.
I guess I should add that till the state arrests you for a crime the suspect does not have a right to demand a trial. I suppose if the state perpetually harassess you in their investigation over a long period of time you might be able to take the state to court to have them stop but it would have to be pretty extreme before the court would tell the state to leave you alone. The state has a right and a duty to investigate crimes.
In many states, to include my home state of Virginia, the right to a speedy trial is a matter of statute. So there’s usually very little debate about what constitutes “speedy”. Often, however, contentious debate surrounds what periods of delay are chargeable to the defense. The defense cannot, obviously, request a continuance, or otherwise delay the trial, and then complain that the trial did not begin in a timely fashion.
However, there’s no mechanism to force a prosecutor to go to trial. The trial is a matter of prosecutorial discretion.
Speedy trial rules may force the prosecutor to either go to trial or dismiss the indictment. But he can always re-indict if he gets new evidence. Jeopardy does not attach until trial.
- Rick
I think mangeorge is envisioning a scenario where the prosecution decides never to go to trial–in other words, they drop the charges–but the defendant wants a trial anyway to clear his name. I don’t believe that one can ever make such a demand, in any jurisdiction.
I see. I guess I misunderstood the purpose of the upcoming hearing. I thought it was to find if the prosecution has enough of a case to go to trial.
One of the things Scotts defense lacks is an alibi. I remember a case a while back where the defense finally turned up an alibi, so the state decided not to prosecute “at this time”. I assume this meant they reserved the right to re-indict. Until the statute of limitations kicks in, I guess.
I saw Richard Jewell on the tube the other night, and there are still people who aren’t convinced of his innocence. Mostly because he “acted odd”. That’s what made me wonder about the Peterson case. The two cases, publicity wise, are not that dissimilar. Jewell was eventually cleared, though. But he had to get tough with the FBI.
That’s right.
Are you thinking of a Grand Jury? I have not been following the case and I don’t know under what circumstances a Grand Jury is convened but I know that basically a Grand Jury looks to see if the accusations against a person merit a trial. I also have a vague recollection that Grand Juries are accused of being rubber stamps for the prosecution and something like well over 90% of the cases they review get sent to trial. I do not have a cite for that though and I am actually curious about it so I’ll do a quick SDMB search and start a new thread on the topic if it hasn’t already benn discussed.
Sure enough there has already been a thread on Grand Juries here at the SDMB. If you’re interested here’s the link:
I can’t recall the case. but there is a US SCT case that says"speedy’ is 60 days. Then the states get another 10 to find a judge, court etc.
That’s fascinating. I would be very interested in reading this case of yours.
Especially since, in Virginia, we have five months to bring the accused to trial if he’s confined, and nine months if he’s out on bail. (Va Code § 19.2-243).
I wonder how we did that?
In fact, let me go futher: you are mistaken about there being any current (good law) US Supreme Court case that mandates 60 (or 70) days as the “speedy trial” guaranteed by the Constitution.
Not only are you wrong, but you chose to post that wrongness in the GQ forum, which demands actual, correct, answers, not guesses.
- Rick
I am not following this case at all, but it sounds like you’re talking about a probable cause hearing. The state has to have probable cause to charge and try a person. The defense can demand before trial a probable cause hearing by which the prosecution has to lay out its evidence before a judge so that the judge may determine whether that evidence is sufficient to sustain the charges. If there isn’t probable cause, the judge will dismiss the charges. If the prosecution develops additional evidence it is free to refile the charges in most cases. IANAL so this is probably oversimplified.
I assume that if people widely suspect you of a crime and you want to clear your name, one method would be to sue accusers for libel/slander.
However, would such a case have any likelihood of success if the defendent in the libel action argued that the allegations had been widely discussed or was a matter of public debate? Could the US libel laws be used in practice to clear your name when many people think you are guilty and say you are guilty?
he reason you cannot recall it is because it probably does not exist. You are probably misunderstanding something.
The generic “speedy trial” is a vague term and subject to interpretation by the courts taking into account the circumstances of the case but there are plenty of people in jails awaiting their trial for months or even years.
Contrary to what most people think I believe the guarantees in the USA are probably inferior to those in most European countries. For example, I believe in the USA there is no precise limit as to how long the police can hold you before they have to take you before a judge and charge you whereas in Europe I believe most countries have a 48 to 72 hour limit. After that period the police have to take you before a judge and charge you or they have to set you free. We all know in the USA there are many hundreds who have been detained since 9/11 and have not been charged or their cases reviewed by a judge.
refusal:
In the United States, prosecutors have immunity from civil libel actions that may arise from the official performance of their duties. So you’d never get to a trial on the merits; the libel case against a prosecutor would be dismissed based on that immunity.
(I’m not sure if it’s qualified or absolute immunity; in this case, even qualified immunity would, I am sure, protect the prosecutors).
News organizations are likewise not likely targets because they are not saying he’s guilty – they are merely reporting the news that he’s been arrested, that the prosecutor’s office said such-and-so, and therefore their words are truthful: they’re not accusing, in other words, but rather reporting accusations.
Libel laws aren’t going to be much help.
It was the Speedy Trial act of 1974-w/numerous cases upholding it, & the permissable exceptions. The 14th amendment applies the 1st 10 amendments to the states, so it makes sense that speedy=60 days.
That’s another thread entirely, on Mob Rule Mentality. One I’d love to see posted. Mr. Jewell “acted odd” just the way many people of color " looked suspiciously dangerous" on September the 12th, 2001. :rolleyes:
I wonder what the statues are in the State of New York. We up here get an earful of some of the very notorious Organized Crime cases where defendants have spent a LOT more than 60 days either in Brooklyn Central being held, or in The Tombs. Any NY Attorneys about who know what the limit is in our fair state?
Cartooniverse
doctordoowop, then explain how come several states and commonwealths currently have time periods of up to 6 months for a trial to happen after arrest, or even longer if the person is released on bond.
On bond is a whole other matter-because no loss of liberty while charges are pending. There are ways out of the 60 day rule, Pretrial motions , unavailability of an essential witness, delays caused by co defendant, & the broad"ends of justice." Of course the law specifically is for federal crimes, but as I said above it should apply to states too under the 14th amendment. I can’t explain how 150 days would meet constitutional(US) muster. It’s 60 +10 in Calif.
doctordoowop, you’ve now gone beyond the bounds of simply making an error. You are apparently deliberately, or recklessly, providing inaccurate information.
The Speedy Trial Act of 1974, as amended (18 USC § 3161 et seq applies only to FEDERAL prosecutions. Moreover, while it was originally enacted as sixty days, it was amended, and now provides for SEVENTY days, as shown in 18 USC § 3161©(1):
18 USC 3161 does not ennunciate a constitutional rule, so it’s irrelevant as to state prosecutions. It merely creates a rule of procedure for federal courts. The Fourteenth Amendment’s application to the states is thus meaningless.
- Rick