[mlyle]

> Just like how the right to a “speedy” trial somehow allows them to be delayed for over a year.

Generally, when trials take a very long time to happen, it's because the defendant has decided it is in their interest to waive the right to a speedy trial.

[yonaguska]

Ummm, Gitmo? J6 detainees? And countless other stories of young black men being held without trials to their own detriment.

[mlyle]

> Ummm, Gitmo?

Umm, Gitmo was messed up. But, to be clear, the United States does not guarantee constitutional rights to non-citizens who have not touched US soil, so this is a bit of a canard.

> J6 detainees?

Despite rumors of hundreds of January 6th detainees languishing in jails-- the actual number is approximately 35. Most of these have waived speedy trial. Most of these have not been detained for a very long time.

A few are still undergoing legal discovery. It's a problematic set of circumstances: further, closely related arrests happen; without providing additional information on the new arrests to existing arrestees' counsel, convictions could later be set aside. In turn, this restarts some clocks. On the other hand, judges are getting frustrated and warning the prosecution that these delays are becoming excessive.

[jessaustin]

the United States does not guarantee constitutional rights to non-citizens who have not touched US soil

I can't find this detail in my copy of the constitution. 6A in particular specifies "the accused". It's true that most Gitmo prisoners were never actually accused of anything (because they had never done anything, in particular anything related to actions undertaken by Saudi nationals under the direction of Saudi intelligence personnel), and were eventually released without apology. However, any prisoner who ever actually went to trial would certainly be classified as "accused".

[LanceH]

In the context of civil asset forfeiture, it is not uncommon for the state to drag it out and make it not worth reclaiming the money.

[mlyle]

Here in this subthread, we're talking about the right to a speedy criminal trial.

Speedy civil trials are not a constitutional right. (Though, when it comes to forfeiture, the long timelines are one of many problematic aspects).

[Retric]

These forfeiture trials are criminal trials. If the government is suing over a breech of contract or something that’s a civil matter, but when the government is acting with powers outside of those of a normal citizen it’s a criminal trial in everything but name.

So it’s doubly troubling as they are also ignoring the presumption of innocence and other such protections.

[mlyle]

> These forfeiture trials are criminal trials.

These forfeiture trials are not criminal trials. There are plenty of ways you can be civilly liable without breach of contract.

I do think the standard should be higher than a typical civil case (beyond preponderance of the evidence).

But this artifact of law has a reason to exist: if there's stuff that's most likely involved in a crime with no identifiable owner, it makes sense for it to be seized. Especially the original case of distant and difficult to identify ship owners. (Once an owner can be identified, I do think there should be greater protections-- deriving from the fourth, not the sixth, amendment.

[Retric]

We both agree with what’s going on and that it’s wrong.

I am saying the court system is misclassifying criminal cases as civil ones. You want to increase the standard of evidence which IMO means roughly the same thing. But, I can see why you might disagree.

[pmyteh]

There are quite a lot of kinds of case that don't fall neatly into one or the other. Another one (at least in England and Wales) is contempt of court hearings arising from civil proceedings. Judges have powers against, for example, litigants ignoring their orders. They're clearly coercive, and can carry prison sentences, but they aren't clearly criminal: the original judge can handle it summarily (even if they don't sit in criminal cases) and in any case the rules are those of the Civil Procedure Code (not the Criminal one). On the other hand, the contemnor is expressly given access to a lawyer, and a finding of contempt is on the criminal standard ('beyond reasonable doubt') rather than the civil ('the balance of probabilities').

An interesting instance of this happened recently, when an appellant in a civil case to our Supreme Court (who also happened to be a lawyer) deliberately leaked the court's draft opinion to the press while it was under embargo. The court wasn't sure what to do, as contempt findings carry an automatic right of appeal and yet there's no-one to appeal to from the supreme court.

(As we have more than one benchful of Supreme Court justices, they decided to assemble one panel for the 'first instance' hearing, which was itself distinct from that who had heard the original case, and a completely fresh panel for the appeal[0]. He was fined £5000 and the appeal was dismissed on all grounds.)

Allegations of fraud in a civil case have also historically been treated differently, because losing could have a similar effect on a litigant's reputation (and ability to carry out a business) as a criminal conviction. It's sometimes possible to get a civil jury trial under these circumstances, for example, which have been effectively abolished in this jurisdiction.

[0]: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2021-0160.html

[kristjansson]

They _should_ be like criminal proceedings, but actually operate as civil actions. Civil Asset Forfeiture - it's right there in the name.

[Retric]

I agree that’s what’s happening.

[LanceH]

Your post that I responded to put it upon the defendant who stretches things out. Regardless of whether it is the civil or criminal, it is frequently the state which delays and adds procedure to these forfeitures for the purpose of grinding out the defendant.

[leephillips]

And if they don’t waive, it’s still on the order of months in most jurisdictions, isn’t it? That’s not speedy.

[dragonwriter]

> And if they don’t waive, it’s still on the order of months in most jurisdictions, isn’t it? That’s not speedy.

Shorter would compromise the defense, who has less warning of the need to prepare for trial (that's why in the federal system, the defense, in addition to having a waivable statutory right for trial to start within 70 days of charging, also has a waivable statutory right for it to not start less than 30 days from charging.)

And it is speedy compared to the problems which motivated the guarantee.

[mlyle]

IMO-- A few months to arraign, exchange evidence, make procedural rulings before trial, etc, isn't unreasonable.

[leephillips]

I realize this is the predominant view, but it never made sense to me. I think we’ve just grown accustomed to it. The Constitution doesn’t say “prompt”, it says “speedy”. I’m sure those without the ability to pay pail, or who are denied bail, don’t regard their few months in the US’s notoriously dangerous jails as reasonable.

[mlyle]

I think the bigger problem here is bail and pretrial detention, and that's what should get fixed instead of trying to ram trials through quickly.

(Yes, the timeframe is longer than it was in the 18th century, but trials have also gotten more complex: mostly in ways that benefit defendants).

[femiagbabiaka]

I agree, except that it’s a long time to be in jail, especially in some of the larger counties in and around cities in the U.S.. Fatally long, in some cases.

EDIT: Nevermind, I see that you addressed this down thread.

[Retric]

The problem here is not generally but rather those cases where people haven’t waved their rights.

[mlyle]

I'm saying most of the cases where people are held up as "detained for ____ days without trial", they have waived right to speedy trial.

The overwhelming majority of defendants not waiving speedy trials get a trial within a year.

Of the remaining, there's a big share that are various kinds of edge cases where it makes sense that a trial has taken a little longer than normal.

And then there's the remaining abuses and problems, which are relatively small in number but should be addressed.

[Retric]

Look even waiting 3 months is already a failure of the speedy requirement. Saying well 1 year is too long but edge cases isn’t a minor issue… No anyone ever hitting 1 year is clear evidence of total failure of the system to even pretend to care about this issue.

[mlyle]

> Look even waiting 3 months is already a failure of the speedy requirement.

3-4 months to get a criminal case together, with discovery requirements, etc, seems reasonable.

> No anyone ever hitting 1 year is clear evidence of total failure of the system to even pretend to care about this issue.

I don't agree. Terrible stuff happens occasionally-- it is not evidence that every element of the system is broken everywhere.

IMO the big issue is bail and pre-trial detention. Yes, criminal cases being in limbo is bad (and the constitutional right of speedy trial is important)-- but a lot of the reason why they take longer now than in the 18th century is because of additional protections for defendants.

[dontcare007]

I'm sure all the Jan 6 protestor have waved their right to a speedy trial...