Duke lacrosse: A speedy trial? A law professor responds.

Yesterday blogger Betsy Newmark posted on the matter of a speedy trial here in North Carolina for the defendants in the Duke lacrosse case. Some questions had been raised regarding how state laws might affect the timing of a trial or trials.

I posted in response and passed part of Betsy’s post on to UNC Law Professor Eric Muller. I asked him if he would comment. Muller blogs at Is That Legal?

Muller's responded. Here’s his email:

The federal Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant a speedy trial in any criminal prosecution, and that right applies in state prosecutions just as in federal prosecutions.

However, that provision has been interpreted not to impose particularly rigorous requirements on court systems. It is common to find appellate cases in which several years elapsed between indictment and trial, and where the appellate court nonetheless finds no violation of the defendant's right to a speedy trial.

Betsy Newmark's post, to which you link, suggests that a defendant has a right to "demand" a speedy trial, by which I guess she means a trial now, dammit! I know of no state or federal law or constitutional provision that allows a defendant to demand to be tried at any particular moment.

Thanks go to Muller for his prompt and clarifying response.

Here's a link to the wording of the Sixth Amendment, which includes the right to a speedy trial.

I'll post more about a possible trial(s)and some other Duke lacrosse matters tonight.

In the meantime, I hope you visit Is That Legal.