Due process and right to trial.

[ceegood]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? TX

I was falsely accused of assault-married (misdemeanor) about 3 years ago. I have refused a plea and have requested a trial from day one. The prosecutor has promised to enhance the charges to a felony charge if I continue to refuse a plea. They claim this will justify the expense of their client's airfare and other expenses to come to trial.

I've already lost all rights to my child and everything else, due to the false accusation, and didn't even get a chance to defend myself yet. All I'm asking for is a fair trial to prove I'm not guilty, but I'm being punished for not accepting the plea they want me to take. I don't understand this!

Is there any such thing as due process, or equal protection under the law, or
innocent until proven guilty any longer- for men I mean?

How long can a requested trial be put off- 3 years, 5 years, 10 years? How can I have a fair trial years later when it's more difficult to get proof and witnesses (perhaps their goal). I never dreamed this could go on until my entire life was destroyed.

Anybody that can give me some advice?

Thanks!

 

[BelizeBreeze]

First of all, how long has "THIS" been going on?

 

[ceegood]

Three years since I was accused and charged. Since then it has been enhanced up and down four times, each time sent to a different courtroom. About the first two years there was a court appearance set every two months, and now it's every six months. When I asked my attorney I was told there is no such thing as due process any longer. I find this very hard to believe, and if true, I find it very hard to accept.

Does anybody know if there still is due process in TX? looks like I may be forced to take a plea in order to ever be able to start putting my life back together. Is it common for defendants to be coerced, harrassed or pushed into having to accept a plea instead of a trial? I USE to believe they were seeking the truth, not just a conviction.
Thanks!

 

[BelizeBreeze]

There were two different laws concerning the issue of the right to a "speedy trial" in Texas. There has always been a constitutional right to a speedy trial. That law is still in existence. There used to be a law in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure that required a case to be tried within a specified number of days. That law was declared unconstitutional. The reason given for declaring the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure rule to be unconstitutional was that the Judicial Branch of the government is responsible for setting its docket and trying its cases. If you remember your high school government classes, you'll recall that there are three branches in our formal government: 1) the Judiciary; 2) the Legislature; and 3) the Executive Branch. Neither branch of the government is allowed to infringe upon the duties and rights conferred upon the other branch. The Legislature cannot pass a law that interferes with a judge's decision on when to try a case.

The constitutional right to a speedy trial does not set a certain number of days within which a case must be tried. In determining whether or not the constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated, the judge of the Trial Court must consider, among other things, the length of the delay, the State's reason the for delay, whether the delay was due to lack of diligence on the part of the State, and whether the delay caused any harm to the accused.

When the accused wants a speedy trial, a motion should be filed requesting a speedy trial. The problem here is that most accused criminal defendants are not in any hurry to go to trial. As long as they can stay out of the courtroom, they have not been subjected to being convicted.

The reverse of this may be true if the defendant is locked up in jail and cannot make bond. In that case, the defendant might want to request a speedy trial and start putting some pressure on the prosecutor to get the case tried.

The length of the delay is the triggering mechanism for analysis of the other Barker factors. State v. Munoz, 991 S.W.2d at 821. Further analysis is required if the length of the delay is "presumptively prejudicial." State v. Rangel, 980 S.W.2d 840, 843 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1998, no pet.).

The length of the delay is measured from the time the defendant is arrested or formally accused. See Harris v. State, 827 S.W.2d 949, 956 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Mabra v. State, 997 S.W.2d 770, 777 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1999, pet. ref'd). Generally, a delay of eight months or longer is considered "presumptively prejudicial" and triggers speedy trial analysis. See Knox v. State, 934 S.W.2d 678, 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Rangel, 980 S.W.2d at 843.

Rosario ZAMORANO,Appellant v. The STATE of Texas

Texas Statutes Art. 32A.02[0]. Time limitations

Sec. 1. A court shall grant a motion to set aside an indictment,
information, or complaint if the state is not ready for trial
within:

(1) 180 days of the commencement of a criminal action if the
defendant is accused of a felony;

(2) 90 days of the commencement of a criminal action if the
defendant is accused of a misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of
imprisonment for more than 180 days; or

(3) 60 days of the commencement of a criminal action if the
defendant is accused of a misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of
imprisonment for 180 days or less or punishable by a fine only.

Sec. 2. (a) Except as provided in Subsections (b) and (c) of this
section, a criminal action commences for purposes of this article[0]
when an indictment, information, or complaint against the defendant
is filed in court, unless prior to the filing the defendant is
either detained in custody or released on bail or personal bond to
answer for the same offense or any other offense arising out of the
same transaction, in which event the criminal action commences when
he is arrested.

So, I guess your first task is to ask your attorney why he hasn't pressed the issue of trial. Unless, of course, you want this hanging over your head the rest of your life.