# Can defense demand a trial? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 16, 2003, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-defense-demand-a-trial/182133 "2003-06-16T02:49:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-defense-demand-a-trial/182133/21 "2003-06-16T16:54:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by doctordoowop \* > \*\*The 14th amendment applies the 1st 10 amendments to the states, so it makes sense that speedy=60 days. \*\* No, it doesn’t. Over the last 50 years the Supreme Court has ruled that certain guarantees (most of them, actually) of the Bill of Rights are applicable to the states via “incorporation,” that is, the idea that when the 14th Amendment guarantees due process in actions by the states, “due process” includes these guarantees. However, there are parts of the Bill of Rights which have not been amended. For instance, the right to a grand jury and the right to a jury trial in civil matters have not been applied to the states (although who knows – someday they might be). As the law stands today, a state can indict and bring to trial a defendant without empaneling a grand jury if it wants to, despite the fact that were the federal government to do that it would be unconstitutional. (Indeed, Mr. Petersen isn’t getting a grand jury, as was discussed in the grand juries thread linked to above.) If you’re right that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a speedy trial mean no more than 60+10 days (and you have yet to provide a cite), then I’m guessing that applies only to federal crimes prosecuted by federal authorities, and does not apply to the states. –Cliffy, Esq. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-defense-demand-a-trial/182133/22 "2003-06-16T17:09:54Z")
Sorry – 2d sentence: “Bill of Rights which have not **amended** ” – last word should be “ **incorporated**.” Also, the guess in my second paragraph turns out to be correct, as verified by **Bricker** , who actually did the research instead of shooting from the hip. (You tryin’ ta make me look bad?) 😉 –Cliffy, again ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-defense-demand-a-trial/182133/23 "2003-06-16T19:27:06Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. The time limit for holding a suspect without charge in the United States is IIRC 72 hours. More precisely, I believe SCOTUS ruled that 72 hours is “not unreasonable.” As for the detainees held post-9/11, they are not charged with crimes AFAIK but are being detained as “enemy combatants” and the like. The circumstances surrounding those detentions are not germane to the general discussion of the legal principle and, if brought up, will undoubtedly get this thread kicked to GD. ---
**Author:** ![NFlanders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a9adbd/32.png) [@NFlanders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NFlanders)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-defense-demand-a-trial/182133/24 "2003-06-16T19:46:02Z")
Going back to the OP: it appears that you are under a common misapprehension that “not guilty = innocent.” In the U.S., all citizens are presumed innocent until a jury or judge rule otherwise. A verdict of “not guilty” simply means that you are “not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” not that you are innocent. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-defense-demand-a-trial/182133/25 "2003-06-16T20:27:50Z")
> [@](#): > > 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? IANAL, but the time limits in NY are that generally, (with an apparent exception for homicide cases), the prosecutor must be ready for trial within six months for a felony, ninety days for a misdemeanor punishable by more than three months incarceration, sixty days for a misdemeanor punishable by not more than three months, and thirty days for a violation. But some periods of time are excluded from that calculation - for example, if a defendant is incompetent for six months, that six months doesn’t count against the time limit. If the defendant is incarcerated in another jurisdiction , that period of time doesn’t count. And there are quite a few other reasons to exclude time from the calculation. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-defense-demand-a-trial/182133/26 "2003-06-16T23:18:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by NFlanders \* > \*\*Going back to the OP: it appears that you are under a common misapprehension that “not guilty = innocent.” In the U.S., all citizens are presumed innocent until a jury or judge rule otherwise. A verdict of “not guilty” simply means that you are “not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” not that you are innocent. \*\* You are right, although my mistake _was_ a slip of the tongue. A small nitpick, though. One _remains_ innocent upon receiving a not guilty verdict. The legal crowd made a point of that after the Simpson verdict. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-defense-demand-a-trial/182133/27 "2003-06-16T23:29:18Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. Go for it, **Cartooniverse**. Sounds interesting to me. And timely. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2003, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-defense-demand-a-trial/182133/28 "2003-06-17T00:12:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by NFlanders \* > \*\*Going back to the OP: it appears that you are under a common misapprehension that “not guilty = innocent.” In the U.S., all citizens are presumed innocent until a jury or judge rule otherwise. A verdict of “not guilty” simply means that you are “not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” not that you are innocent. \*\* And the right to an impartial trial is not about “clearing your name”, but about protecting your life, liberty or property from being taken by the State. If the State finds it’s not worth its time and money to nail you, they have no obligation to spend it so you can do P-R damage control. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2003, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-defense-demand-a-trial/182133/29 "2003-06-17T00:34:32Z")
I take it then that the answer to the OP is “no.” Does there remain a General Question here? ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2003, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-defense-demand-a-trial/182133/30 "2003-06-17T02:23:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JRDelirious \* > \*\*And the right to an impartial trial is not about “clearing your name”, but about protecting your life, liberty or property from being taken by the State. If the State finds it’s not worth its time and money to nail you, they have no obligation to spend it so you can do P-R damage control. \*\* Second paragraph, last sentence in the op, **JD**. I guess I was looking for some fairness among all this justice, **Manny**. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2003, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-defense-demand-a-trial/182133/31 "2003-06-18T00:22:46Z")
Something about your post just annoyed me, **JRDelirious**. :dubious: I know what you say is true and all, but try telling that to all those people in Texas. And yes, I also know that’s different. They were taken beyond “wrongly accused”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-defense-demand-a-trial/182133.md?page=1)