DELAY AS DISADVANTAGE

 On July 16, 2013, one the Houston Courts of Appeals (Houston is the only city in Texas that has two appellate courts) issued a ruling concerning delay in criminal cases that is caused by the State. It is common for the defendant to raise constitutional objections when there is a delay in prosecution that is not the defendant's fault.

In 1995, the defendant was accused of sexually assaulting a child. The police officer who investigated the alleged crime was a detective who had only recently been promoted. The detective made several missteps in gathering evidence and in maintaining records of the interviews. As a result, he believed he did not have enough evidence to arrest the defendant for sexual assault of a child. His investigation remained "dormant" until 2003 when, responding to pressure from supervisors to clear out cases that were no longer being actively investigated, the detective deactivated the case.

In 2010, the alleged victim (now an adult) wanted to know why her case had never been prosecuted. A new detective followed up on the case; he worked on it for six months without finding any evidence that had not been uncovered in the first investigation. The new detective then presented his case to the district attorney, who brought charges against the defendant on July 20, 2010--nearly fifteen years after the crime allegedly occurred.

At trial, the defendant argued that the "prosecutorial delay" deprived him of his right to due process of the law and his right to a speedy trial. https://askcompetentlawyer.com/complex-litigation/ The trial court agreed with him and dismissed the case.

The prosecution appealed, arguing that the dismissal was legally incorrect because it had not been proved that the fifteen-year delay gave the prosecution a "tactical advantage." The Court of Appeals agreed with the prosecution. The Court of Appeals elaborated that the defendant had only shown that the delay was due to an incompetent and inadequate investigation by the original detective; the defendant had NOT proven that the delay was designed to give the prosecution an advantage. The Court of Appeals sent the case back to the trial court, where it will be heard more than eighteen years after the crime was allegedly committed.

Aside from the constitutional arguments, statutes of limitations are the primary protection against prosecutorial delay like this, but in child sex offenses, there often is no statute of limitations. There was no statute of limitations for the offense that the defendant was charged with.