Speedy trial issue lands before US Supreme Court

[cali]

By JOHN CURRAN – 19 hours ago

BENNINGTON, Vt. (AP) — After he was charged with hitting his girlfriend in the face, career criminal Michael Brillon sat in jail without bail for nearly three years, going through six public defenders before being tried for assault.

The delays paid off — for Brillon: A Vermont court threw out his conviction and freed him from prison last spring, saying his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial had been violated.

Now, the U.S. Supreme Court is taking up the case this week, trying to decide if delays caused by public defenders can deprive a criminal defendant of that right. In particular: Whether governments can be blamed for such delays since they're the ones who assign and pay the lawyers for indigent defendants.

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.

"You're greasing that slippery slope," said David Parkhurst, an attorney with the National Governors Association, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the prosecutor's appeal. "That's the big concern here."

Brillon, a 46-year-old construction worker whose criminal past includes convictions for sexual assault on a minor, felony obstruction of justice and cocaine possession, was charged with aggravated domestic assault over the 2001 incident with his girlfriend, who was the mother of his child.

Held without bail, his case inched along as lawyer after lawyer asked for postponements and eventually withdrew or was replaced at Brillon's request.

The first got an evidentiary hearing postponed because he was moving his law practice. He was fired by Brillon, who claimed the lawyer had failed to communicate with him.

The second reported a conflict of interest that prevented him from continuing — a day after he'd been appointed.

The third quit after telling a judge Brillon threatened his life during a break in a hearing.

Brillon fired the fourth, and the fifth quit, citing changes to his contract with the state public defender's office.

<snip>

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkKn3xrj-zsH3n9jXexMHqD28w9AD95L3HO80

[melm00se]

1. interesting case

and I agree with Mr Parkhurst that this creates an area of concern. If the defendant wins this case, you pave the way for defendants to manipulate circumstances to delay his/her trial and then invoke this case as precedent to have his/her conviction overturned.