I recently heard an update on a case here in my part of the country, about a woman who was found guilty for killing her ex-husband in his home (one of those domestic disputes over child-custody). The trial was held (and completed) six months ago - January 2013.
The weird thing is that the crime itself happened around Thanksgiving, 2007 - and from what I’ve read, she was arrested shortly thereafter. Over the years, I had let the case slip my mind, even though it happened about three miles from my house.
I couldn’t believe when I heard recently that she had never even stood trial over those five years - I had assumed this was over and done with, a loooong time ago.
It brought to mind the Jodi Arias sideshow, and how the same thoughts had entered my head during that trial - why (if Alexander was killed in 2008), we were just now getting around to a “speedy trial”, in the first part of 2013.
Not trying to restart a thread about what a crazy bitch Jodi Arias was, but if she was indicted and arrested in July 2008, then I guess she just sat around in jail for 4 1/2 years, waiting for her day in court? Am I getting this right?
I could understand a murder case like that maybe taking 6 - 9 months to “put together”, and I wouldn’t bat an eye at any of her “speedy trial” rights being violated. But 4 1/2 years? What am I missing here?
ok, fair enough - but in the spirit of “fighting ignorance”, can you tell me why (if I’m Jodi Arias - and I know that I’m pretty much guilty of everything they’re accusing me of), then why “waive my right to a speedy trial”, and let it drag on forever?
If I’m in her shoes, and the onus is on the prosecution to get their shit together and find me guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then I’d want to move this thing to trial “tomorrow.. if not sooner”, and I’d raise hell if it got delayed 4 1/2 years.
All that being said, I guess this might qualify as an “Occam’s Razor” sort of deal - “if it was that simple, then she and her defense team certainly would have done it”.
I see your point, and I’m sure somebody around here can explain my point better than I can.
But (as a stupid analogy), suppose I’m - oh, I don’t know - the Chiefs… and Tom Brady and the Patriots are down by 4, driving down the field on me, 1:00 left, and they have no timeouts.
I know I’m totally out-manned and out-classed, and I’m likely screwed no matter what. Do I just let them “take their best shot” with the time alotted, or do I keep calling my own timeouts (i.e. “waiving my right to a speedy trial”), and give them time to get all their ducks in a row, along the way?
Seems like I’d want the clock to tick as fast as it possibly could (since the “onus” is on them, in both cases), and I wouldn’t want it to drag on any faster than it needs to.
You’re assuming that Jodi Arias actually knew she was guilty of everything they were accusing her of. Watching the clips I’ve seen, I sincerely doubt she thought she did anything wrong. Like, “What? He was an abuser, even though I have no evidence of that!”
The appeals process is already a lengthy one, so I can see where you might think, “Eh, make it a quick trial and if my lawyers screw up, I’ll just get an appeal”, but getting a quick appeal is quite unlikely. (Quickest I’ve seen is Amanda Knox.)
And you called the other woman’s case a domestic child custody case. But this woman broke in and and murdered him? (I’m not familiar with the case you’re referring.)
Point is, you want to take a looooong time to prepare a REALLY decent case if you’re trying to convince a jury your should be set free after shooting then stabbing your on-and-off boyfriend 31 freaking times. Or shooting your ex over a child custody case. Maybe there’s a witness to some abuse somewhere who wants to tell their story and bring some doubt to the jury. Maybe another DNA test is run that brings doubt. Maybe the accused can work up a psychiatrist enough to convince them they’re mentally unstable and can avoid a trial.
Since you like sports analogies, I think baseball would be a better one. If you’re a pitcher, you know the inning is going to end at some point (a verdict will be read), but if you quit having meetings on the mound (meetings with lawyers, psychs, etc.) and just throw the FRICKIN’ BALL (stop calling witnesses and get off the stand), then then inning (trial) ends a lot sooner.
IMHO, delay generally favors the defense. Memories fade, evidence is lost, sometimes witnesses die or otherwise become unavailable.
There are other reasons to waive a speedy trial…finding experts, allowing experts to do their work to prepare for trial, sometimes the defendant needs a mental exam, etc.
It’s usually in the defendants favor to delay the trial for as long as possible if they have a high probability of being convicted. First of all many people get out on bail and go on with their lives as much as possible. This period can often be years. Second as stated, both the public’s and witnesses memories fade, witnesses die, evidence may go missing etc. Prosecutors might be more open to a plea deal, if out of the public’s short term memory. Third generally if your not convicted yet and can’t make bail, you’re in the closest jail. Once you’re convicted, you go to prison. Which may be 100s of miles away and scary plus final.
My recent (unfortunate) experience with the courts has taught me that the right to a speedy trial pretty much doesn’t exist. The way it was described by my attorney was that the right to a speedy trial only applies to the readiness of the prosecutor and has nothing to do with the judicial side of things.
In other words, if the courts are backed up on their case load, you’re pretty much fucked. No recourse, just wait your turn. I was charged with a misdemeanor crime that took over two years to come to trial. Granted, I wasn’t incarcerated during that time but “right to a speedy trial” is mostly a fallacy.
Pre-conviction, she’s in a county jail. Post-conviction, she’s in a state prison, potentially death row (which, from what I understand, progressively cranks the misery all the way up from 9 to 10 to 11). That might be one reason to delay. Also, I think when either side is stuck with an utterly preposterous argument, Delay Delay Delay is a standard tactic. Take forever, amass a whopping great load of balderdash to dump on the opposition, and hope to win by attrition. And of course as time goes by, whatever the actual provable-in-a-cout-of-law “truth” might be becomes gradually more obscure.
Then you have all the associated hearings, motions (legitimate or otherwise), legwork, lab work, etc. Also, in this case there were three changes of counsel: initially Arias represented herself (of course she did) along with court-appointed legal advisors, then she miraculously got a clue and requested the the the advisors be made primary counsel, then eventually one member of the defense team won the lottery and got released and replaced. Each change, I believe, caused a long delay (“time to prepare,” etc.)
Ugh. That’s enough of this train wreck for today. (And it’s embarrassing to admit actually knowing so many details.)
I’m not a legal expert, but remember one murder case (can’t cite it though without research) that did not come to trial for 5 years, the US SC stated it did NOT violate his Constitutional rights.
“Fact specific” is the key, most delays for that long, yes, would trigger the 6th AM right.
