Alabama Procedures | Right to a Speedy Trial

By its express words, the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to a speedy trial. [1] The U.S. Supreme Court has described the right as fundamental and applied to the states. [2]

But how does this right actually work in Alabama?

The Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure declares that criminal trials have priority over civil cases. [3] The U.S. Supreme Court has declared four factors to consider in deciding whether the right to speedy trial has been violated:

“Length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.” [4]

Alabama applies these factors. [5] No one factor controls; rather, it is a balancing test. [6]

“In Alabama, the length of delay is measured from the date of the indictment or the date of the issuance of an arrest warrant -- whichever is earlier -- to the date of the trial.” [7]

Though a defendant’s failure to assert the right to speedy trial does not necessarily determine the issue, courts will be more likely to find the defendant suffered prejudice if the right was demanded. [8]

The State bears the burden of justifying the delay. [9] The types of delay are generally separated into three categories: (1) deliberate delay, (2) negligent delay, and (3) justified delay. [10]

Certain lengths of delay such as 60, 42, 26, 19, and 16 months have been held to be presumptively prejudicial. [11]

Regarding prejudice to the defendant, the Supreme Court has recognized that oppressive pretrial incarceration, anxiety and concern of the accused, and the possibility that the [accused’s] defense will be impaired by diminishing memories and loss of exculpatory evidence as possible prejudice. [12] To courts, the most serious to the courts is the loss of the exculpatory evidence. [13]

Potentially, violation of the right to speedy trial may warrant relief. If you or someone you love is in need of an appeal or postconviction relief in Alabama, contact Peter Armstrong, Attorney at Law, today for a free consultation.

Citations:

1.    U.S. Const. amend. VI

2.    Klopfer v. N.C., 386 U.S. 213, 223 (1967).

3.    Ala. R. Crim. P. 8.1.

4.    Bingo v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972).

5.    State v. Pylant, 214 So. 3d 392, 394 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016).

6.    Ex parte Walker, 928 So. 2d 259, 263 (Ala. 2005).

7.    Id. at 263-64.

8.    Horton v. State, 369 So. 3d 1128, 1133 (Ala. Crim. App. 2022) (quotations omitted).

9.    Barker, 407 U.S. at 531

10. Id.

11. Ex parte Walker, 928 So. 2d at 264.

12. Barker, 407 U.S. at 532.

13. Id.