Constitutional ''Speedy Trial'' rights aren't so speedy
While you're waiting for trial, there's time limits on the state to prosecute you promptly. In Washington, there is a ''Speedy Trial'' right guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions, and then there is a ''Time for Trial'' right created by Court Rule, which we'll discuss in the next post. If the State violated your Speedy Trial rights, then a PRP may be appropriate to challenge the violation.
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to a speedy public trial. State v. Monson, 84 Wn.App. 703, 711, 929 P.2d 1186 (1997). A constitutional right to a speedy trial is a separate right from the procedural rules with a ''time for trial'' provision. State v. Hudson, 130 Wn.2d 48, 57, 921 P.2d 538 (1996). The constitutional right to a speedy trial is not violated by the expiration of a definite time but, rather, by the expiration of a ''reasonable time.'' Monson, 84 Wn.App. at 711. The Sixth Amendment Speedy Trial right attaches when a charge is filed or an arrest is made holding one to answer to a criminal charge, whichever occurs first. State v. Corrado, 94 Wn.App. 228, 232, 972 P.2d 515 (1999). Courts review an alleged violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial de novo. State v. Iniguez, 167 Wn.2d 273, 280, 217 P.3d 768 (2009).
When deciding if a trial delay violates the Sixth Amendment, courts consider the balancing test set out in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). The defendant must first demonstrate ''that the length of the delay crossed a line from ordinary to presumptively prejudicial.'' Iniguez, 167 Wn.2d at 283. Next, courts consider (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the defendant's assertion of his right, and (4) prejudice to the defendant. Barker, 407 U.S. at 530. Washington courts hold that the speedy trial rights under Article 1 §22 of our state constitution require the same analysis as the federal constitution's Sixth Amendment analysis. Iniguez, 167 Wn.2d at 290.
What this means is that of you claim ''speedy trial'' rights, don't think that its going to force the courts to act promptly in bringing you to trial. As the above cases indicate, ''speedy trial'' under the Constitutions' protections means ''a reasonable time'' to conduct the trial. This is the catch-22 of claiming this right, because you're asking a court to determine what a ''reasonable'' time to bring you to trial would be in order to convince them to dismiss the case against you. Most cases hold that a year or more is ''reasonable'' under the ''speedy trial'' rights. If you're looking for a PROMPT trial, your better bet may be to assert your ''time for trial'' rights guaranteed by court rule.
