Sixth Amendment Speedy Trial Guarantee - Delay Resulting From Interlocutory Appeals

• NCJ Number: 73393
• Journal: Boston University Law Review Volume: 60 Issue: 4 Dated: (July 1980) Pages: 664-685
• Author(s): E A Maitin
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 22 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

A standard is proposed by which it can be determined to what extent an alleged violation of the speedy trial guarantee stemming from interlocutory appeals delay should be weighed against the Government.

Abstract

To implement the sixth amendment speedy trial right, the Supreme Court has mandated that courts 'engage in a difficult and sensitive balancing process.' According to the substantive guidance provided by the Court in Barker v. Wingo (1972), which weighs the conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant, one of the criteria the court must consider is the reason for the pretrial delay. However, the Court did not address the issue of delay caused by interlocutory appeal taken by the Government, and a review of cases in State and local courts yields conflicting results as to whether such a delay should be counted against the Government. Also, the Speedy Trial Act specifically excludes time limits upon interlocutory appeals delay. Nonetheless, the fundamental nature of the defendant's speedy trial right dictates that delay caused by an interlocutory appeal be weighed against the Government. In determining the final weight to be assessed against the government under the proposed standard, a court should balance four factors: (1) the necessity of the issue appealed to the Government's case, (2) the strength of the Government's position on the issue appealed, (3) the expeditiousness with which the Government has proceeded during the appellate process, and (4) the seriousness of the crime. Thus, in some cases, the burden the Government must bear for delay resulting from interlocutory appeal will be minor; other situations will require that the Government bear a heavy burden. The flexibility in the proposed standard is designed to accommodate not only the defendant's interests, safeguarded by the sixth amendment, but also society's interests in effectively prosecuting criminals and in providing a speedy trial. Numerous footnotes are provided.