![]() ![]() To claim a deprivation of a speedy trial right, the defendant must have asserted his right to a speedy trial. Defendant’s Burden: Assertion of the Right & Prejudice to His Case If a majority of the factors weigh in favor of the defendant, the court may find that his right has been violated and his charges may be dismissed. The court will evaluate the factors, separately and together, to determine whether they weigh in favor of the state or the defendant. Of the four factors, the state bears the burden with regards to the first two factors and the defendant bears the burden of proving the other two factors. Whether the delay resulted in prejudice to the accused.Whether the accused asserted his right and.Whether the reason for the delay was justified.Whether the length of the delay was uncommonly long. ![]() Under the Barker balancing test, there are four factors that the court assesses: Once it has been determined there is a presumptively prejudicial delay, the court will use the Barker Balancing Test to assess whether the defendant was deprived of his speedy trial right, and thus entitled to a dismissal. In assessing whether a defendant has been deprived of his speedy trial right, there must first exist a delay that is “presumptively prejudicial.” There is no set time frame that triggers the presumption, but a delay approaching one year is sufficient to trigger a speedy trial inquiry. What is the “Presumptively Prejudicial” Delay? ![]() To do so, Texas courts use a balancing test established by the Supreme Court in Barker v. First, there must exist a delay that is “presumptively prejudicial.” Then, the court will assess whether there has been a deprivation of the speedy trial right. The Dallas County District Attorney’s Office later agreed to dismiss the case in the “interest of justice because the State will not prevail on a Motion to Dismiss for Violation of Right to a Speedy Trial.” When Has the Right to a Speedy Trial been Violated?Ī defendant’s right to a speedy trial is violated when there has been an unjustified delay between the accusation and trial which results in prejudice to the accused. We argued that there was no valid for the reason for the delay and that the defendant’s “liberty has been restrained as he has been under constant suspicion of committing this crime.” We filed a motion to dismiss based on violation of his right to a speedy trial. The client was charged in Dallas County with DWI – a case that was pending for nearly three years before a court date was scheduled. Recently, one of our clients had his case dismissed due to an unjustified delay in the case. This means defendants may bear a heavy burden when claiming they have been denied their constitutional right to a speedy trial in Texas. However, since the sole remedy is a dismissal, courts are hesitant in finding a deprivation of the right to a speedy trial. The “silver lining” of this game is that the defendant’s charges may be fully dismissed if the court finds the accused was deprived of his or her right to a speedy trial. During this waiting game, evidence may get lost and witnesses may disappear, resulting in a weakened defense for the defendant. But neither source, nor Texas law, defines “speedy.” That means once a person is accused - either by being arrested or charged - he or she could wait months or even years before being brought to trial. Under the federal constitution and the Texas constitution, the accused in a criminal prosecution is guaranteed the right to a speedy trial. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |