NCJ Number
61231
Journal
University of Richmond Law Review Volume: 10 Issue: 2 Dated: (WINTER 1976) Pages: 449-457
Date Published
1976
Length
9 pages
Annotation
THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT OF 1974, WHICH ESTABLISHED A 4-YEAR PLAN TO IMPLEMENT MANDATORY TIME LIMITS FOR FEDERAL CRIMINAL TRIALS, WITH AN EVENTUAL MAXIMUM TIME LIMIT OF 100 DAYS FROM ARREST TO TRIAL, IS EXAMINED.
Abstract
THE LAW PROVIDES FOR AN INTERIM SCHEDULE DESIGNED TO ALLOW COURTS TO ADJUST GRADUALLY TO THE FINAL PROVISIONS, WHICH TAKE EFFECT JULY 1, 1979. TIME LIMIT EXTENSTIONS ARE POSSIBLE UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, SUCH AS SANITY HEARINGS, HEARINGS FOR PRETRIAL MOTIONS, AND INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS. IN ADDITION, COURTS HAVE DISCRETION TO GRANT CONTINUANCES. IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT BROUGHT TO TRIAL WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD, HOWEVER, THE COURT MUST DISMISS THE CASE WITH OR WITHOUT PREJUDICE, UPON A MOTION BY THE DEFENDANT. THE LAW MAY CAUSE NEW PROBLEMS IN THE FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM. CRITICS CONTEND THAT THE LIMITED NUMBER OF COURT PERSONNEL AVAILABLE MAY RESULT IN SOME CRIMINALS GOING FREE WITHOUT A TRIAL. THEY ALSO FEEL THAT THE TIME LIMITS ARE TOO STRICT AND THE PENALTIES TOO ABSOLUTE. THE GRADUATED TIME SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE BILL SHOULD, HOWEVER, PERMIT GRADUAL ADJUSTMENT TO THE REQUIREMENTS. IN ADDITION, THE COURTS DO HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY IN COMPUTING THE TIME LIMITS. THE ACT ALSO INCLUDES A REVIEW MECHANISM WHICH PERMITS CHANGES TO BE RECOMMENDED. FINALLY, A JUDICAL EMERGENCY MAY BE DECLARED IF A COURT'S CASELOAD IS TOO HEAVY TO MEET THE TIME LIMITS. THEREFORE THE TIME LIMITS MAY NOT BE UNREASONABLE. FURTHERMORE, THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT DISMISSAL OF CHARGES IS THE ONLY REMEDY FOR DENIAL OF A SPEEDY TRIAL. REPROSECUTION OF CASES DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IS POSSIBLE, BUT UNLIKELY. THE SUCCESS OF THE LAW IS DIFFICULT TO PREDICT BECAUSE OF REMAINING AMBIGUITIES AND POSSIBLE CHANGES IN PRETRIAL TACTICS. NEVERTHELESS, SUCH LEGISLATION HAS LONG BEEN NEEDED. FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (CFW)