Failure to Prosecute
The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial for the accused. This right is fundamental and is imposed on the State of Oklahoma by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The State of Oklahoma further ensured these rights by adopting the language of the right to due process as well as the right to a speedy trial in Article II of the Oklahoma Constitution.
In Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), the Supreme Court of the United States held that there are four (4) factors the courts should assess in determining whether a particular defendant has been deprived of his right to a speedy trial: length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant. Further, “the prosecutor has a duty to make a diligent, good faith effort to bring an accused imprisoned in another state before an Oklahoma Court to grant him a speedy trial and such effort include extradition.” Vierrether v. State, 583 P.2d 1112, 1115 (Okla. Crim. App. 1978)(quoting Renton v. State, Okla Cr. 480 P.2d 624 (1970).
The Supreme Court could not “definitely say how long is too long in a system where justice is supposed to be swift but deliberate.” Instead, the length of delay before the Constitutional right to a speedy trial is violated will vary from case to case and depend on the circumstances. The Court found well over five years to be extraordinary. When a case has sat over one year, the Court must at least review the reasons behind the delay.
The second factor is the government’s justification for delay. The State bears the ultimate responsibility of progressing with a case. The Supreme Court, in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), held that “[a] defendant has no duty to bring himself to trial; the State has that duty as well as the duty of insuring that the trial is consistent with due process.” Society itself has a vested interest in bringing swift prosecutions, and “society’s representatives are the ones who should protect that interest.” The State has offered no reason for the delay in prosecution.
The third factor to consider is the defendant’s responsibility to assert his right. This assertion must be timely and clear. This right may be waived by assertions of other defenses, certain filings, and defendant’s arguments pertaining to the case.
The final factor to consider is prejudice to the defendant. Prejudice “should be assessed in the light of the interests of defendants which the speedy trial right was designed to protect.” The Doggett Court further explained how “Barkerstressed that official bad faith in causing delay will be weighed heavily against the government, and a bad-faith delay the length of this negligent one would present an overwhelming case for dismissal.” The Court concluded that a bad-faith delay does not make “relief virtually automatic,” but neither is negligence tolerable simply because “the accused cannot demonstrate exactly how it has prejudiced him.” Further, “condoning prolonged and unjustifiable delays in prosecution would both penalize many defendants for the state’s fault and simply encourage the government to gamble with the interests of criminal suspects assigned a low prosecutorial priority.” Undue delay without a viable reason shows an uncommonly feeble interest in bringing an accused to justice.
Furthermore, in United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 314 (1971), determining if the right to a speedy trial has been violated, the conduct of the prosecution and the defendant are weighed. However, the primary burden remains “on the courts and the prosecutors to assure that cases are brought to trial.” That burden is taken on when a criminal prosecution has begun. The right to a speedy trial begins when a defendant becomes an accused. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, in Fritz v. State, 1991 OK CR 62, ¶ 61 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991), held that a defendant becomes the accused when the felony information is filed.
An undue and unreasonable delay in prosecution, amounts to negligence and an uncommon feeble interest in bringing the defendant to justice. It will prevent the defendant from finding witnesses to mount a proper defense. It will also limit the defendant’s ability to properly confront the State’s witnesses. To have a speedy trial is a Constitutional Right!
Hire an Attorney You Will Swear by, Not At!
Don't Wait to Hire the Best Tulsa Attorney for You
Criminal charges in Oklahoma require an aggressive defense. No matter the charges you face, it is important to have an attorney who will help you navigate the complex judicial system and provide you with a clear understanding of the charges you face. When defending criminal charges, it is necessary to obtain representation quickly. Many times the best outcome is formulated and negotiated early in the process. The longer you wait to hire a criminal defense attorney the greater the stress and the greater the advantage to the prosecution.
There are many different types of crimes that could be classified as criminal offenses. These are serious charges and should not be taken lightly when your future and freedom are hanging in the balance. If charged with a criminal offense, you could face fines, prison time and a criminal record that will affect the rest of your life. A criminal record will stick with you forever and could deter you from potential employment and affect your ability to obtain housing, among other things.