Speedy Trial standards?

[GuyinMA]

Hi, is there a set of standards and guidelines regarding the right to a speedy trial for OUI in Massachusetts? Every site I look on has a vague definition. My OUI case has been going on for almost a year and a half due to delays. The delays have been caused by the court, not the defense. The case keeps getting bumped because of overcrowding. I have a decent case, but it's frustrating that I haven't been allowed to present it to a jury and it's been a year and a half since my arraignment. I'm being told that the speedy trial right doesn't apply to me because I haven't been in custody awaiting trial. But how can a constitutional right only be for people in jail without bail and not for everybody? It's not my fault the courts are overcrowded or that someone else is in custody awaiting trial. Anyway I would like to know what the specific time limits and guidelines are regarding what constitutes a speedy trial rights violation, if there are even any guidelines.

[irish77]

that's a question for a lawyer.

[BigMistakeFl]

You could ask your attorney to send a "Notice of Expiration of Speedy Trial", serving it to the state attorney's office. I'm not sure that it would accomplish anything, but perhaps one of the forum's attorney's can enlighten you further.

[GuyinMA]

Thanks. I have asked about it repeatedly and all my attorney tells me is that the 6th amendment is basically meaningless unless you're in custody. So the right to speedy trial is only reserved for people in jail awaiting trial. At least that's how I've understood the explanation. It just seems odd to me that Ican be denied a constitutional right just because I'm not incarcerated.

[paguy88]

Originally Posted by GuyinMA

Thanks. I have asked about it repeatedly and all my attorney tells me is that the 6th amendment is basically meaningless unless you're in custody. So the right to speedy trial is only reserved for people in jail awaiting trial. At least that's how I've understood the explanation. It just seems odd to me that Ican be denied a constitutional right just because I'm not incarcerated.

if you think about it makes sense...

what was it? the Spanish inquisition... they just arrested people held them in jail never to bring them to trail..

[Curt581]

Originally Posted by GuyinMA

Thanks. I have asked about it repeatedly and all my attorney tells me is that the 6th amendment is basically meaningless unless you're in custody. So the right to speedy trial is only reserved for people in jail awaiting trial. At least that's how I've understood the explanation. It just seems odd to me that Ican be denied a constitutional right just because I'm not incarcerated.

Have you thought about going back to the police and demanding to be re-arrested?

It's worth a try...

[GuyinMA]

Originally Posted by Curt581

Have you thought about going back to the police and demanding to be re-arrested?

It's worth a try...

Is that sarcasm? Hard to tell in writing.

[Curt581]

Originally Posted by GuyinMA

Is that sarcasm? Hard to tell in writing.

Of course not.

If you went back to jail, you could then invoke your speedy trial rights. There is the whole jail food issue, but I'm sure it's a trade off you'd be willing to make.

If we keep at this, I'm sure we could come up with something about not having to quarter troops in your home, too.

[GuyinMA]

Originally Posted by Curt581

Of course not.

If you went back to jail, you could then invoke your speedy trial rights. There is the whole jail food issue, but I'm sure it's a trade off you'd be willing to make.

If we keep at this, I'm sure we could come up with something about not having to quarter troops in your home, too.

Well my point is that I don't understand where it says that speedy trial rights are to be reserved only for those in custody. The 6th amendment says that all defendants are entitled to a fair and speedy trial, not just a selected group. I've read through information about speedy trial and there is nothing that says anything about that. I just read about a case where a man convicted of rape had his sentence overturned because the court had violated his speedy trial rights during the process. So if a rape case has to obey the 6th amendment, then I don't see how a DUI case shouldn't. And a lot of DUI law info I've read says that the speedy trial issue is used sometimes as a reason for dismissal. It just doesn't say what specific time limits constitutes a violation of that right or what circumstances constitute it. I've heard that defendants in custody get priority with that regard, but that isn't specifically written in any laws I've managed to find.

[Curt581]

Originally Posted by GuyinMA

Well my point is that I don't understand where it says that speedy trial rights are to be reserved only for those in custody. The 6th amendment says that all defendants are entitled to a fair and speedy trial, not just a selected group. I've read through information about speedy trial and there is nothing that says anything about that. I just read about a case where a man convicted of rape had his sentence overturned because the court had violated his speedy trial rights during the process. So if a rape case has to obey the 6th amendment, then I don't see how a DUI case shouldn't. And a lot of DUI law info I've read says that the speedy trial issue is used sometimes as a reason for dismissal. It just doesn't say what specific time limits constitutes a violation of that right or what circumstances constitute it. I've heard that defendants in custody get priority with that regard, but that isn't specifically written in any laws I've managed to find.

That's what I'm sayin'!

You're being discriminated against due to your non-incarcerated status. That's why I suggested that you demand to be re-incarcerated so you can get the full benefit of your rights.

[Zigner]

I'm willing to bet that th attorney has agreed to the delays on his client's behalf

[seniorjudge]

[url]http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=129050[/url]

From my extremely cursory examination of Massachusetts law, it seems that the statutes are in a bit of a flux up there in the frozen North.

[Curt581]

Originally Posted by Zigner

I'm willing to bet that th attorney has agreed to the delays on his client's behalf

I think he's being discriminated against. Just as atheists are discriminated against, in that, by having no actual religion, they can't fully enjoy the right to practice the religion of their choice.

People who are never charged with a crime can never fully enjoy their right to a trial by a jury of their peers.

[GuyinMA]

Originally Posted by Curt581

That's what I'm sayin'!

You're being discriminated against due to your non-incarcerated status. That's why I suggested that you demand to be re-incarcerated so you can get the full benefit of your rights.

That's like telling someone who is black and being discriminated against that they should become white so they can not be discriminated against. But my point is that if the law doesn't say such discrimination between incarcerated and non-incarcerated defendants and that ALL criminal cases should get a speedy trial, then that discrimination is not legitimate.

[Zigner]

There's a guy in this forum who is being incredibly hard-headed about this.