The Bill of Rights & a Speedy Trial?

Question

Do you beleive it is still being observed today?

Why, or whynot?

Answer 1

Speedy trial is still being observed. Most delays in a trial do not come from the government (the courts or prosecution), though I'm sure there are some anecdotal stories. It mainly comes from the defense, which means that while there is the right to a speedy trial, it is not always used.

In terms of the Bill of Rights, that is certainly a controversial issue. However, as precedent holds that the Constitution holds to people who fall under U.S. jurisdiction, not just citizens, and we have signed treaties on how to handle wartime prisoners, I personally feel how we are handling "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo is in violation. But for the average American, in their day-to-day lives, it is still being respected.

Answer 2

No we do not observe the idea of a speedy trial.

Many of our courts are inefficient and overcrowded. Lawyers are frequently changed. Attorneys ask for delays for many reasons. It seems that many judges do not work a full day.

Answer 3

Yes, the right to a speedy trial is pretty well intact for those who get a trial.  The problem, or concern rather, is those who are being held without charges brought against them, no access to council and right to heabeus corpus.

Answer 4

Why not you tell me what it is you believe?  Try to imagine the following anecdotal story to be true.  John R is indicted on charges in 1996.  The Judge suggests John R waives all time and his lawyer says that it is no problem.  But there is problems, John R cannot agree with his lawyer who has a heavy caseload and cannot fit him into the busy schedule.  In 2000, the lawyer asks the Judge to fire him and the Judge grants it.  In 2001, John R proceeding pro se moves for speedy trial sanctions, the Judge denies it.  John R’s trial finally begins in 2003.  The truth is his name is not really John R, it is J Zedner.

Zedner v. United States (2006):

“…In this case, petitioner’s trial did not begin within 70 days of indictment. Indeed, his trial did not commence until more than seven years after the filing of the indictment, but petitioner, at the suggestion of the trial judge, signed a blanket, prospective waiver of his rights under the Act. We address the following questions: whether this waiver was effective; whether petitioner is judicially estopped from challenging the validity of the waiver; and whether the trial judge’s failure to make the findings required to exclude a period of delay under a particular provision of the Act, §3161(h)(8), was harmless error.”

If you truly care to know what it is I believe then I will tell you that our justice system is the best money can buy.

*/End of Line.

Answer 5

yes, a speedy trial hasn't been disrupted, and most of our rights are still intact the only one was the patriot act and freedom of speech, but mostly they are fine