Court Opinion

ID: 9772621
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:24:17.004316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:46.351694
License: Public Domain

CHEW, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority excuse the delay of trial in this case after a thorough and thoughtful inquiry. I would not be so patient for two reasons. I explain the second, first.
First, the right to a speedy trial is clearly a fundamental right; contained within the Magna Carta, the bill of rights of the first colonies, and in every constitution of the fifty states. Yet, our application of this fundamental right can apparently only be applied by the application of a mechanical formula immediately weighted in favor of the State.
Second, we ignore the “social interest[s] in providing a speedy trial which exists separate from, and at times in opposition to, the interests of the accused.” Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. at 519, 92 S.Ct. at 2186. In this case, the Appellant suffered eleven months of pretrial confinement, but so did the taxpayers of Midland County who paid for each day of those eleven months. Doesn’t the public also have a stake in seeing that justice is timely and not delayed? I believe that the community also has an interest and right to a speedy trial.
Relief from overcrowded dockets must eventually come from the legislature to authorize new courts, but meanwhile, the courts must seek interim remedies, there being many to avoid the only remedy this Court may impose — dismissal, to avoid the kind of trial delay suffered here.