Covid-19 Court Closures and the Constitutional Right to a Speedy Trial

COVID-19 court closures as a result of the pandemic have largely deprived the American public of access to the judicial system. Although the court closures are temporary and courts are slowly reopening to address at least some matters, most litigants will have their day in court postponed for months – or more. Many legal commentators do not believe that jury trials will commence until there is a widely available vaccine. While it’s true that having 12 jurors crammed in a jury box, just inches apart, would be completely irresponsible, it is impossible to imagine that there may be few jury trials in the United States for the remainder of the year. For criminal defendants, anything other than a traditional, in person jury trial may violate their federal and state constitutional rights. Until either a vaccine is found and the courts reopen, or until another, constitutionally acceptable method of holding a trial is developed, litigants are left in limbo. But unlike other litigants, criminal defendants are entitled to a speedy trial. What happens to a defendant’s right to a speedy trial when it will likely be well into 2021 before jury trials again become available?

The Right to a Speedy Trial is an Important Constitutional Right

The right to a speedy trial is enshrined in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The clause reads: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy… trial.” The purpose of the clause is to prevent the trial of a defendant from being unreasonably delayed. When a defendant’s speedy trial rights are violated, they are entitled to a discharge, meaning dismissal, of the pending charges against them.

In addition to federal constitutional protection, all states have included a more specific speedy trial guarantee in their state constitutions or enacted specific statutes to address the issue. The time frames and other legal protections afforded by the state speedy trial rights vary by jurisdiction. There is also a federal law which outlines the details of the right to a speedy trial in federal court.

While the right to a speedy trial is held by all criminal defendants, those who were denied bond and held in jail pending trial are seriously affected by court closures. Some courts are reconsidering monetary bonds and either lowering the amount of the bond required, or altering the bond to a non-monetary bond with conditions such as house arrest. The defendant still has the right to a speedy trial, however getting out of jail is generally the most immediate concern. If your loved one is in jail pending trial in state or federal court, a motion to modify bond may be available. A lawyer would be best suited to determine whether such a motion is appropriate in the circumstances of the case and what should be included in the motion.

The right to a speedy trial is meant to ensure more than that a defendant does not languish in prison awaiting trial. Speedy trial rights also protect a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial. If it takes too long to get a case to trial, witnesses may die, disappear, and their memories will not be as fresh. Evidence can also be lost, damaged, or contaminated. Thus, delay can harm a defendant whether or not

Another consideration is that a defendant who sits in jail while awaiting trial is more likely to take a plea they otherwise would not have taken. Whether or not a defendant is guilty, it is common for defendants to be motivated by practical considerations when determining whether to take a plea. Sometimes, a plea is a ticket out of jail for a defendant when they are offered what amounts to a “time served” plea. Thus, a plea offers them an avenue to get back to their family and back to their lives. Even when a defendant will be serving a prison sentence, they are often eager to get out of the local jail where most defendants are held awaiting trial. Oftentimes the conditions in the local county jail are far worse than state prisons and there are more resources and better food in state facilities. Defendants can become desperate to get to prison, where their quality of life may be better. Accepting a plea may be their only way out of inhumane conditions in jail.

Covid-19 Court Closures May Violate Speedy Trial Rights

States and the federal government have carved out reasons that the speedy trial period can be tolled (extended). Ultimately, there are many reasons that a court can legally delay a trial without violating a defendant’s right to a speedy trial. These vary by state and are determined by statute and case law. In most states, the state of emergency declarations and stay at home orders issued by governments in response to the pandemic will be determined by courts to constitute “good cause” for the suspension of speedy trial rights. Essentially, calling something “good cause” allows the government to postpone trials with what would otherwise be an illegal delay. However, there are some states which are currently holding in person jury trials with precautions to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, such as social distancing. Since this area of law is quickly evolving, its impossible to say how the speedy trial issue will play out in the courts of America.  

State laws regarding speedy trial rights do not impact the right to a speedy trial enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. However, there is no right to be brought to trial within a specified number of days under the Sixth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has determined that there are four factors which courts are to consider when determining whether a trial delay violates the constitutional speedy-trial guarantee. They factors a court must consider are 1) the length of delay, 2) the reason for the delay, 3) the defendant’s assertion of his right, and 4) prejudice to the defendant. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972).  If the court determines that a violation has occurred, the remedy is a dismissal of the case with prejudice.  That means the State is barred from refiling charges for that crime, and the defendant will be free from prosecution.

Courts are supposed to balance the four factors articulated in Barker for each particular defendant. However, most courts that have addressed speedy trial rights during this pandemic have issued or requested blanket waivers of speedy trial rights without any consideration for an individual defendant’s rights. These broad proclamations do not seem to satisfy the individualized speedy trial assessment the Supreme Court articulated in Barker and subsequent cases.  When courts reopen, it is predicted there will be many defendants challenging the government’s ability to pursue charges against them in light of speedy trial violations. In most cases, if the trial court denies a defendant’s motion to discharge for a violation of speedy trial rights, the defendant can appeal. As this is a highly technical appeal, an experienced appellate lawyer can ensure the facts and the law are best presented to the appellate court.