dui trial delayed by prosecution

[[email protected]]

In Alabama I was arrested on the charge of dui. My BAL was zero, but they also took blood for a drug test. When I went to court I was told that my court date had been changed. So I went back to court a second time. Then I and my court appointed attorney were told that the prosecution's blood evidence was not ready. So they rescheduled the trial again. Is this legal? If the prosecution isn't ready at the time of trial, shouldn't the case be dismissed?

 

[justalayman]

if the time allowed for a trial has exceeded any rule concerning a right to a speedy trial it should be dismissed upon application. Other than that, a court can grant as many continuances as it sees fit.


but using your logic: what if you were not ready for some justifiable reason and the evidence you were lacking completely exonerated you. Do you believe they should still go ahead with the trial simply because they had scheduled it, even realizing you would assuredly lose?

 

[adjusterjack]

In Alabama I was arrested on the charge of dui. My BAL was zero, but they also took blood for a drug test. When I went to court I was told that my court date had been changed. So I went back to court a second time. Then I and my court appointed attorney were told that the prosecution's blood evidence was not ready. So they rescheduled the trial again. Is this legal? If the prosecution isn't ready at the time of trial, shouldn't the case be dismissed?

If you tell us the date of the arrest and the date of the arraignment you might get a helpful comment.

 

[quincy]

In Alabama I was arrested on the charge of dui. My BAL was zero, but they also took blood for a drug test. When I went to court I was told that my court date had been changed. So I went back to court a second time. Then I and my court appointed attorney were told that the prosecution's blood evidence was not ready. So they rescheduled the trial again. Is this legal? If the prosecution isn't ready at the time of trial, shouldn't the case be dismissed?

Here is a link to 18 US Code §3161, Time Limits and Exclusions: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3161

See (7).

If you have an attorney, you can/should be addressing all questions and concerns about your DUI charge to him.

 

[CdwJava]

In Alabama I was arrested on the charge of dui. My BAL was zero, but they also took blood for a drug test. When I went to court I was told that my court date had been changed. So I went back to court a second time. Then I and my court appointed attorney were told that the prosecution's blood evidence was not ready. So they rescheduled the trial again. Is this legal? If the prosecution isn't ready at the time of trial, shouldn't the case be dismissed?

It sounds as if you have not even been arraigned. Most speedy trial limitations occur AFTER arraignment. So, if there has been no arraignment, then the only thing limiting the time would be the statute of limitations.

 

[CdwJava]

Here is a link to 18 US Code §3161, Time Limits and Exclusions: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3161

See (7).

If you have an attorney, you can/should be addressing all questions and concerns about your DUI charge to him.

Quincy, I do not believe the USC applies to a state case. It doesn't apply in other state issues, so I don't know that it would be binding on the state court here, either. The notes reference US District Courts and not state municipal or superior courts, so I don't think it is applicable.

 

[quincy]

It sounds as if you have not even been arraigned. Most speedy trial limitations occur AFTER arraignment. So, if there has been no arraignment, then the only thing limiting the time would be the statute of limitations.

If he has a court appointed attorney, the chances are pretty good there has been an arraignment.

 

[CdwJava]

If he has a court appointed attorney, the chances are pretty good there has been an arraignment.

Maybe ... depends on the process. Even in CA you can have court appointed counsel assigned even before arraignment in some jurisdictions.

And in most cases out here if there is a continuance after arraignment, and it is not objected to, then it is considered agreed to by the defense. A lot depends on the trial process within that state as it may involve a preliminary hearing rather than an arraignment before the clock starts ticking. Or, maybe they have a loooong speedy trial time length. I would think that if he has counsel, and there is a speedy trial issue, he would have raised that.

And the way around all of that is for the state to DROP the charges and re-file later. That's what happens here when we wait for forensics.

 

[quincy]

Maybe ... depends on the process. Even in CA you can have court appointed counsel assigned even before arraignment in some jurisdictions.

And in most cases out here if there is a continuance after arraignment, and it is not objected to, then it is considered agreed to by the defense. A lot depends on the trial process within that state as it may involve a preliminary hearing rather than an arraignment before the clock starts ticking. Or, maybe they have a loooong speedy trial time length. I would think that if he has counsel, and there is a speedy trial issue, he would have raised that.

And the way around all of that is for the state to DROP the charges and re-file later. That's what happens here when we wait for forensics.

Here is a link to the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure: http://judicial.alabama.gov/library/rules_crim_procedure.cfm

See Rule 4.4, Initial Appearance, and Rule 6.1, Right to Counsel, and Rule 8.3, Continuances, and Rule 14.2, Proceedings at Arraignment.

The Alabama Rules parallel the USC.

 

[CdwJava]

And, again, if there is a speedy trial issue, I am certain his attorney can and will raise the issue. if they get close to a legal bar, I am just as certain the prosecution will drop the case and re-file later. The speedy trial issue is unlikely to be the golden egg to get him off the hook unless the prosecution is completely asleep at the wheel.

If no objection was made to the continuance, it is likely that there was an implicit waiver of time on the issue. If not, then the defense attorney can make the proper motion if it gets to that point. Such delays for the results of chemical testing are commonplace - at least out here. Unlike TV, we don't get forensic results overnight and the results can take 30-90 days or more. If it's a BAC and alcohol is present, our return from DOJ is often within 2-4 weeks. If for drugs, 30 days is a speedy return - more common is 90. Other states likely have similar time frames, and in larger counties in my state the time for such results can be upwards of 6 months.

 

[TheGeekess]

And, again, if there is a speedy trial issue, I am certain his attorney can and will raise the issue. if they get close to a legal bar, I am just as certain the prosecution will drop the case and re-file later. The speedy trial issue is unlikely to be the golden egg to get him off the hook unless the prosecution is completely asleep at the wheel.

If no objection was made to the continuance, it is likely that there was an implicit waiver of time on the issue. If not, then the defense attorney can make the proper motion if it gets to that point. Such delays for the results of chemical testing are commonplace - at least out here. Unlike TV, we don't get forensic results overnight and the results can take 30-90 days or more. If it's a BAC and alcohol is present, our return from DOJ is often within 2-4 weeks. If for drugs, 30 days is a speedy return - more common is 90. Other states likely have similar time frames, and in larger counties in my state the time for such results can be upwards of 6 months.

Depending, too, on the county in Alabama having its own testing unit, or having to send it to the State for processing. Most of them send it to the state.

 

[quincy]

And, again, if there is a speedy trial issue, I am certain his attorney can and will raise the issue. if they get close to a legal bar, I am just as certain the prosecution will drop the case and re-file later. The speedy trial issue is unlikely to be the golden egg to get him off the hook unless the prosecution is completely asleep at the wheel.

If no objection was made to the continuance, it is likely that there was an implicit waiver of time on the issue. If not, then the defense attorney can make the proper motion if it gets to that point. Such delays for the results of chemical testing are commonplace - at least out here. Unlike TV, we don't get forensic results overnight and the results can take 30-90 days or more. If it's a BAC and alcohol is present, our return from DOJ is often within 2-4 weeks. If for drugs, 30 days is a speedy return - more common is 90. Other states likely have similar time frames, and in larger counties in my state the time for such results can be upwards of 6 months.

To be clear, I have not said one way or the other if there is a speedy trial issue here. Not enough information has been provided by bryll to say. All I have done is provide links to the laws that apply and I have advised bryll to speak to his attorney if he has concerns. And that is what I still recommend.

I am sort of assuming that there is no issue with a speedy trial if bryll's attorney has not objected to the continuances. The only thing I find surprising about what has been posted is that the prosecutor apparently has no solid BAC evidence yet to support the DUI charge.

 

[CdwJava]

I am sort of assuming that there is no issue with a speedy trial if bryll's attorney has not objected to the continuances. The only thing I find surprising about what has been posted is that the prosecutor apparently has no solid BAC evidence yet to support the DUI charge.

Except, probably, the officer's observations (including the SFSTs) which likely support the conclusion that the OP was impaired. Probable cause does not require a positive chemical test. Heck, even a conviction does not require a positive chemical test!

 

[quincy]

Except, probably, the officer's observations (including the SFSTs) which likely support the conclusion that the OP was impaired. Probable cause does not require a positive chemical test. Heck, even a conviction does not require a positive chemical test!

Perhaps.

It should make a defense attorney's job easier, though, if there is no chemical evidence to support the officer's observations.

 

[CdwJava]

Perhaps.

It should make a defense attorney's job easier, though, if there is no chemical evidence to support the officer's observations.

It depends on the officer and the jurisdiction. We've been making non-test DUIs out here for decades.