Betsy Newmark’s blog has become the “must visit daily” place for anyone seeking updates and informed commentary on the Duke lacrosse case.
Today, in one of two excellent Duke lax case posts (here and here) Betsy says:
Amazingly, I'm learning that the laws of my state [North Carolina] do not call for a speedy trial and that the defendant can't petition for a speedy trial (as I heard on cable TV last night).I’m not a lawyer.
I guess I just assumed that all states would follow the federal model in writing their own constitution. Or that the right to a speedy trial had been incorporated to apply to the states (It's a N.C. case which incorporated that right, I believe).
If any of my readers are N.C. lawyers, I'd love to know if this is true and what the history of that is. How many other states don't have a speedy trial provision? How many deny the defendant the right to petition for a speedy trial? Are they mostly southern states?
But UNC School of Law Professor Eric Muller is. He blogs at Is That Legal?
Here’s one of his posts from May 12 ---
____________________________
Duke Lacrosse Case
Can you say "prosecutor looking desperately for a cooperating witness?"
I knew you could
__________________________
I'll bet you're all saying, "John, get a move on and email Muller. Ask him to respond to Betsy's questions or suggest someone who can. We're all interested."
OK, folks. Here's the email I'm sending Muller.
----------
Dear Eric,
The link which follows is to a post that contains part of another blogger's post asking about the right to a speedy trial in NC, with particular reference to the three Duke lacrosse players
The blogger, Betsy Newmark, is a North Carolinian, a high school history teacher, and suberb blogger.
http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2006/05/speedy-trial-for-duke-lax-players-lets.html
I hope you'll respond. I'll post in full what you say.
Betsy's email is: betsynewmark@gmail.com
Thank you.
Best,
John
www.johnincarolina.com
2 comments:
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.
Is Eric suggesting that the State of North Carolina is saying something like, "We haven't killed them nor have we set them free, so what is your beef?"
My beef is this: harm is being done. The young men's liberties are harmed by not being able to represent themselves in court over the last 8 months. The legal system is harmed by this case. We all know a Grand Jury is a secret inquisition only palatable because no one dies by its hand. This DA exposes the law as being capricious and arbitrary. His actions color prosecutors (anywhere - all lumped together) as selfish, distant and shallow. The apparent abuse of the system in this case threatens what has become the States right to avoid Federal intervention. If this is not handled in the "Spring," the Feds will become involved in it.
As reported in the Kinston (N.C.) Free Press, “the median age for a case pending*” for a felony trial in N.C. is 155 days. I am not suggesting that 8 months is too long a time. But 8 months ago Mr. Nifong said that further tests were needed. Now, those tests have been completed and reported. Let's have a trial!
*http://www.kinston.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=39044&Section=Local
Post a Comment