Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
California DISMISSES cases because; of Speedy Trial law
Topic Started: Oct 25 2010, 08:27 PM (253 Views)
Quasimodo

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/10/california-supreme-court-upholds-dismissal-18-criminal-cases-in-riverside-county-judges-shortage.html

State high court upholds dismissal of 18 criminal cases in Riverside County because of judges shortage [Updated]
October 25, 2010

(snip)

The defendants in the two felonies and 16 misdemeanors declined to waive their rights to a speedy trial, forcing a trial judge to dismiss the charges because there were no courtrooms available.

[Compare that to Spivey Vs. North Carolina, when Spivey's pre-trail detention of four and a half years was ruled NOT to violate his right to a speedy trial, because the court calendars were simply too crowded to hear his case.]


(snip)

[Updated at 12:40 p.m.: The ruling also was a victory for defendants in an additional 300 Riverside County criminal cases that had been dismissed for lack of judges and were on appeal, said County Deputy Public Defender Wiliam A. Meronek.

"The courts are just overwhelmed by both the exponential growth in population and by some extent to the district attorney's charging policy," Meronek said. "They tend to pursue everything, and they are reluctant to plea bargain or negotiate any settlement."]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

In California, the 6th amendment is a living reality.

And it has teeth.

What's North Carolina's excuse?


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply