We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
STATUTORY RIGHTS - SPEEDY TRIAL: CONSIDERING GOOD CAUSE DELAY AND PROPER PROCEDURE WHEN THE DEFENDANT INVOKES HIS STATUTORY RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL.
- Authors
Hamilton, Tatiana
- Abstract
In State v. Watson, the North Dakota Supreme Court considered the appeal of a defendant who was convicted of similar charges in three separate counties. The court held that in two counties, the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting continuances for good cause delay. The state presented sufficient evidence for a good cause delay based on (1) the unavailability of a testifying witness at a scheduled trial date, (2) the state used diligence in attempting to secure the witness, and (3) the defendant did not show that he was prejudiced by the delay. Therefore, although the 90-day statutory period was exceeded, there was good cause and the district court's decisions were not unreasonable. However, the court held that in the third county, the defendant's statutory speedy trial right was violated because the trial failed to begin within 90 days of his speedy trial election and the government failed to show good cause for the delay. The district court previously denied a motion for continuance because there was not good cause based on the prosecutor's scheduling conflicts. The court held the record as presented was not sufficient to rule as to whether there was good cause delay for the continuance. The record, the court held, was too void of information as to determine what had occurred at the district court level. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded the district court's judgment for dismissal of the charge with prejudice. In comparing and contrasting case law with the dates of procedural activity and the reasoning, the court expanded its previous case law of what violates the statutory right to a speedy trial. Of significance to both the bench and the bar, this case allows for a comparison of what is permitted against what violates a defendant's rights when he has invoked his statutory right to a speedy trial. Watson provides guidelines for how the court and government should oversee the timeline of criminal prosecutions when the defendant has invoked his statutory right to a speedy trial, and what the outcome may be if this right is violated.
- Subjects
SPEEDY trial; CIVIL rights; COURT congestion &; delay; NORTH Dakota. Supreme Court; JUSTICE administration
- Publication
North Dakota Law Review, 2020, Vol 95, Issue 1, p207
- ISSN
0029-2745
- Publication type
Article