Speedy Trial Violations in Washington State
Criminal defendants have numerous rights under the state and federal constitutions, including the right to a speedy trial. If their constitutional rights are violated, it may provide grounds for vacating their convictions. Not all trial delays are deemed constitutional violations, however, as demonstrated in a recent Washington opinion issued in a matter in which the defendant appealed his conviction for assault. If you are accused of an assault offense, it is advisable to speak to a Tacoma assault defense lawyer about your rights.
The Right to a Speedy Trial
The United States and Washington Constitutions both protect criminal defendants’ right to a speedy trial. The court clarified that the analysis of speedy trial rights is substantially the same under both Constitutions. Specifically, the right to a speedy trial arises when a defendant is charged with a crime or arrested, whichever occurs first. Further, if their right to a speedy trial is violated, they are entitled to the dismissal of the charges against them with prejudice.
There is no defined limit as to what is considered an unconstitutional delay. Rather, courts usually assess four factors in determining if a delay is sufficient to violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights: the duration of the delay, the reason for the delay, whether the defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial, and whether the defendant suffered prejudice as a result of the delay.
The length of the delay is the threshold factor in determining an allegation that the right to a speedy trial has been violated, but the length tolerable depends on the complexity of the crime. The courts generally deem a delay in excess of one year as prejudicial, however. The courts then assess whether the prosecution or the defendant caused the delay, and will hold delays caused by the government against it. The defendant must also establish that he asserted his right to a speedy trial and demonstrate how the delay was prejudicial to him. If a delay is lengthy and attributable to the government, however, prejudice is not required.
To determine whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial has been violated, the courts perform a balancing test that involves four inquiries: whether the length of the delay was unusually long, whether the defendant asserted their right to a speedy trial, whether the defendant or the government was at fault for the delay, and whether the defendant suffered prejudice due to the delay.
Example 1: A Case Delayed Nine Times
It is alleged that the defendant was charged with second degree assault in January 2020, following an incident that occurred earlier in the month. He was arraigned two weeks later, and his trial was scheduled for May 2020. His trial was continued nine times, and he was not actually tried for over a year, however. The trial delays were attributed, in part, to the COVID-19 pandemic. He was found guilty of a lesser charge, after which he appealed, arguing that the state violated his right to a speedy trial.
The court explained that in order to trigger a speedy trial analysis, a defendant must allege that the duration between the accusation and trial has surpassed the line dividing ordinary delays from those that are presumptively prejudicial. In other words, a defendant cannot prove that they have been denied the right to a speedy trial if the government has prosecuted their case with typical promptness. The court noted, though, that a finding that a delay is presumptively prejudicial does not demonstrate a speedy trial violation; instead, it triggers the right to the four-factor analysis.
In the subject case, the court ultimately found that the defendant failed to show he suffered actual prejudice due to the delays or that the delays were the result of the state’s negligence. Thus, the court denied his appeal.
Example 2: State v. Holcomb
The Court of Appeals of Washington recently analyzed what constitutes a violation of the right to a speedy trial, in State v. Holcomb, a case where the defendant’s trial was delayed on several occasions.
The defendant was charged with first and second-degree assault, both with firearm enhancements, violating a no-contact order, and tampering with a witness. He was subsequently tried and convicted of all charges. He then appealed, alleging in part, that the trial court violated the time for trial rule and his right to a speedy trial. On appeal, the court affirmed.
It is alleged that the defendant’s trial was scheduled to begin on November 30, 2015. The trial was subsequently continued a total of ten times over eleven months. From November 2015 through February 2016, three continuances were granted based on agreements between the parties. On March 10, 2016, the State moved for a continuance due to the prosecutor’s unavailability. On March 22, 2016, the State moved for a continuance to allow time to respond to the defendant’s recently filed motion to suppress. On April 28, 2016, the State made its third motion for a continuance based on the unavailability of witnesses. Then, on June 1, 2, 16, and 21, the State moved for continuances based on the lack of availability of either the prosecutor or witnesses. The defendant did not post bail and remained in custody throughout the delays in his trial.
Washington Law Regarding Time Period Between Arraignment and Trial
Under Washington law, the court has a responsibility to ensure a trial within 60 days of arraignment. Certain periods are excluded from the time for trial, however, including unavoidable circumstances that are beyond the control of the court or the parties in the case, and continuances granted by the court. A court has the discretion to grant a continuance when it’s required by the administration of justice and will not prejudice the defendant. Court congestion, however, is not adequate grounds for a continuance. Here, as the trial court’s continuances were not based solely on court congestion, the court found no violation of the rule regarding time for trial.
The court then analyzed whether the trial court violated the defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial. Factors considered in determining whether a violation has occurred include the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the assertion of right, and the prejudice to the defendant. An eight-month delay is presumptively prejudicial and sufficient to require further analysis. Here, as the delay was eleven months it was sufficient to trigger further review. As the first four months of the delay were in part due to the defendant’s need for additional time to prepare for trial, the court found the length of the delay weighed against a speedy trial violation. The remainder of the delays were attributed to the State and therefore weighed in favor of a speedy trial delay. Further, the fact that the defendant continuously objected to the delay weighed in his favor as well. The court noted, however, that the defendant failed to show that actual prejudice was caused by the delay. Based on the foregoing, the court found that the defendant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated.
Talk to an Experienced Tacoma Defense Lawyer
People accused of a crime have numerous rights, and if their rights are not upheld, they have options for seeking justice. If you are faced with criminal charges, you should contact an attorney to discuss your rights as soon as possible. The experienced Washington criminal defense lawyers of The Law Offices of Smith & White possess the knowledge and resources needed to help you seek a favorable outcome, and if you hire us, we will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can contact us through our form online or by calling us at (253) 203-1645 to set up a conference.