Right now there is a case of a double murderer who was eye-witnessed plus caught on tape killing his girlfriend and her friend at a tollbooth. Since he was lying in wait for them to arrive, and since he had two murders, he is eligible for the death penalty.
He told the judge he wanted to plead guilty, that he did it out of common jealously, that he had indeed planned it, and that he wanted the lethal injection.
The judge told him he didn’t know enough law to represent himself and sent him off to wait for representation to be assigned.
The legal experts say it can be years before he is found guilty, more time before sentencing, and automatic appeals. So don’t be in a hurry to buy his headstone.
But what if he insists on a Speedy Trial? Can he also get a Speedy Sentencing? And is he entitled to a Speedy Appeal?
It refers to a Supreme Court decison in which “the majority assumed and the dissent asserted that sentence is part of the trial and that too lengthy or unjustified a delay in imposing sentence could run afoul of this guarantee.” (To wit, the guarantee in the Sixth Amendment to a speedy trial.)
A “delay in sentencing” suggests a long gap between conviction and sentencing.
That is not the case here. This guy has not been convicted. The proceedings have just opened, and he hasn;t even had his plea accepted yet. So there’s been no evidence, no consideration, no verdict, nothing. But “right to a speedy trial” does not imply right to dispense with a trial altogether.
Apparently trial procedures in death penalty cases in California do not allow defendants to plead guilty without an attorney present, or without the consent of their counsel. There are obvious public policy considerations behind such a rule. If delay results because the defendant refuses to accept or instruct counsel, it doesn;t seem that his right to a speedy trial is being frustrated; he himself is the cause of the delay.