COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS DEMONSTRATES TEST FOR VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL

 In late June the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed a judgment in a case decided by the San Antonio Court of Appeals that illustrates how the courts handle a situation when there is long delay between an indictment and an arrest. The question is whether the defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution was violated when the defendant was arrested in 2010 for child abuse offenses that were filed against him in 2004. The offenses were alleged to have transpired in 2002, about a year and half before the 2004 indictment.

The defendant did not know about the 2004 indictment until he was arrested in 2010. He remembered detectives talking to his parents in 2004, but the detectives never contacted the defendant.

The State argued that the defendant was not entitled to claim his speedy trial rights under circumstances relating to his DWI case. In 2006, there was a motion to revoke his probation that he was granted in 2003 on the DWI case. The defendant did not renew his driver’s license in 2007, apparently to avoid arrest on the DWI revocation warrant.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals applied the normal test for evaluating a speedy trial claim, as provided by the United States Supreme Court. The test was applicable, because the defendant first established presumptive prejudice, which means the point at which the courts will deem a delay apparently unreasonable without knowing all the details. https://askcompetentlawyer.com/complex-litigation/ Applying the test, the Court held that the defendant’s right to a speedy trial was violated, due to the extraordinary delay, despite the situation with the DWI revocation warrant.

The normal factors for the test all weighed in the defendant’s favor: length of delay, reason for delay, the defendant’s right to a speedy trial and prejudice to the defendant. The Court found it important that, due to the delay, the defendant’s parents had lost important memories in part due to medical issues. It was also important that the State was aware of the defendant’s home address during the entire six-year delay yet it provided no explanation for the delay.