April 19, 2021 Update. Speedy trial questions
Who has the right to a speedy trial?
And what the hell is Lifetime doing with these guys?
April 19, 2021
Hello Friends. Here’s a short update.
Yes, this case is DRAGGING on, and no, that’s not unusual. I’ve seen many recent questions about the rules surrounding speedy trials, so I wanted to answer them. The following is an excerpt from State of Idaho v. Jorge Ferreira Tinoco, 2013 Unpublished Opinion 739:
“Idaho Code § 19-3501 requires in relevant part: The court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, must order the prosecution or indictment to be dismissed, in the following cases: . . . . 1 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). 3 (3) If a defendant, whose trial has not been postponed upon his application, is not brought to trial within six (6) months from the date that the defendant was arraigned before the court in which the indictment is found.
The State bears the burden to demonstrate good cause existed for failure to bring a defendant to trial within the statutory six-month period. Clark, 135 Idaho at 258, 16 P.3d at 934; State v. Risdon, 154 Idaho 244, 247, 296 P.3d 1091, 1094 (Ct. App. 2012). “[G]ood cause means that there is a substantial reason that rises to the level of a legal excuse for the delay.” Clark, 135 Idaho at 260, 16 P.3d at 936. The “question of whether legal excuse has been shown is a matter for judicial determination upon the facts and circumstances of each case.” Id. Courts formerly 4 applied the constitutional factors from Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), in analyzing I.C. § 19-3501. See State v. Russell, 108 Idaho 58, 62, 696 P.2d 909, 913 (1985). The Barker factors include: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) whether the defendant asserted the right to a speedy trial; and (4) the prejudice to the defendant. Risdon, 154 Idaho at 249, 296 P.3d at 1096 (citing Barker, 407 U.S. at 530). However, the Idaho Supreme Court abandoned this approach, favoring instead the reason for delay. See Clark, 135 Idaho at 259-60, 16 P.3d at 935-36. Initially, whether good cause exists is left to the discretion of the trial court, but this discretion is not unbridled and on appeal we will independently review the lower court’s decision. Id. at 260, 16 P.3d at 936.”
The opinion outlines the law in Idaho on speedy trial cases, and in general, it follows the law in the other states and the U.S Supreme Court. Speedy trial is the defendant’s right, but the rule is that the defendant can’t delay, delay, delay, and then scream, “you violated my speedy trial rights!”
Several readers commented that Scot Reich, a lawyer, and YouTube commentator, said the people have the right to have defendants tried expeditiously. While I often agree with Scott, this comment is just plain silly. (And, Scott, if you see this post, you know it is.) “The People” (as in the state of Idaho) have only the rights extended to it in the U.S. Constitution through The Fourteenth Amendment:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Our founding fathers designed the U.S. Constitution to protect the individual from the over-reach of the government; it’s not meant to protect, or even define, the rights of the government. In fact, the Constitution is intended to do just the opposite: to limit the rights of the government. In other words, If a right is not explicitly given to the government, the government can’t claim it. There is no specific grant in the Constitution that gives the state of Idaho or any other government the right to bring a defendant to a speedy trial.
The guarantee of a speedy trial is designed to protect an individual from being held and so having their liberty taken for a long period without ever receiving a trial. There is no constitutional basis for claiming the people have a right to try a defendant expeditiously.
Neither Chad nor Lori have asserted their right to a speedy trial. In fact, both have explicitly waived their rights to a speedy trial. Any defense attorney will tell you delay usually works on the side of the defense. Delay allows for the case to develop, and with time, memories fade, circumstances change, and witnesses and evidence disappear or dissipate. There’s also the conventional wisdom that time will allow the media frenzy over a case to die down a bit - but we all know there’s no way that’s going to happen in this case.
I know it’s frustrating, and I feel for Kay and Larry Woodcock and Colby and Kelsee Ryan. I feel for everyone who is waiting for justice, but the case will take as long as it takes, and claiming that the state or even the victims have a right to see Chad and Lori brought to trial expeditiously is just ludicrous.
And on another subject, I’ve been asked what I think about the announcement that there will be a made for Lifetime movie released about the case this summer. I’m sure having glamourous Hollywood actors play them will stroke Lori’s narcissistic little soul no end. I’m concerned, though, that every time one of these programs is released, the jury pool shrinks slightly. The more people see information about the case and formulate opinions, the fewer people will be available to serve as jurors.
