Supreme Court reviews speedy trial issue
Criminal Law
The Supreme Court appeared unlikely Tuesday to favor a broad rule that rewards criminal defendants with dismissal of charges against them because of trial delays by their taxpayer-funded lawyers.
The court heard arguments in a case from Vermont in which the state Supreme Court threw out the assault conviction of career criminal Michael Brillon because his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial had been violated. Brillon was jailed for three years and went through six defense attorneys before his trial for hitting his girlfriend in the face.
The justices are trying to determine when delays caused by public defenders can amount to a constitutional violation and when governments can be held responsible since they're the ones who assign and pay the lawyers for indigent defendants.
As the lawyers for Brillon and Vermont recounted the actions of Brillon, his lawyers, the state's public defender office and the courts, it became clear that, as Justice David Souter said, "There's plenty of blame to go around."
For some other violations, criminal defendants are entitled to new trials. But when a defendant is deprived of a speedy trial, the Supreme Court has ruled that dismissal of the charges is the only remedy.
"Aren't you giving defense attorneys a perverse incentive" to delay, asked Justice Samuel Alito.
Forty states and 15 organizations — state governments, county governments, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, a victim's rights' group — are backing the Vermont prosecutor's appeal of the ruling, worried that if it stands criminal suspects will try to game the system and get the result Brillon did.
Related listings
-
2 Ill. men accused of running $15M fraud scheme
Criminal Law 01/08/2009Two men passed themselves off as foreign currency traders to swindle customers out of $15 million, which they used to pay for a lifestyle that included strip clubs, jewelry and private jets, according to a criminal complaint unveiled Wednesday in fed...
-
Santa gunman lost job, wife before gory attack
Criminal Law 12/29/2008Bruce and Sylvia Pardo started the new year in 2006 with all signs pointing to a bright future — an upcoming marriage, a combined income of about $150,000, half-million-dollar home on a quiet cul-de-sac and a beloved dog, Saki.But things quickly turn...
-
Fla. teen pleads not guilty in school shooting
Criminal Law 12/17/2008A teen charged with fatally shooting a friend at a south Florida high school has pleaded not guilty to a second-degree murder charge.Teah Wimberly entered a written plea Thursday. She will be tried as an adult. If convicted, the 15-year-old could be ...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.