Please, let’s not play the pedantry game.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed
By suspending jury trials, the Idaho Supreme Court has not denied anyone a speedy and public trial - they have only delayed those trials.
The right to a trial by jury does not mean the right to a trial on demand.
If the court had said that they were suspending jury trials, and everyone on the criminal docket would have bench trials - that would be suspending the right to a jury trial, and that would almost certainly be unconstitutional.
DougBH
103
I have no intention of releasing any of these individuals from my custody," Barnes said, according to Los Angeles’s KABC-TV. "We are going to file an appeal and we’re going to fight it and if the judge has any intent of releasing any one of these individuals, he will have to go through line by line, name by name, and tell me which ones he is ordering released."
Hmmm…would this article have drawn as much attention if it had said “Sheriff appeals Judges Order” as it would saying “Sheriff Refuses Judges Order?”
2 Likes
WuWei
104
Speedy trial hasn’t happened in years.
Well, it’s all a matter of how you define “speedy”.
Essentially the only thing the Supreme Court has said on the subject is that 8 and a half years is not “speedy”.
The question still remains: where do they get the authority to “delay” a constitutional right. Since some folks have problems with the actual usage of suspend.
Because they’re not delaying the right, just the trials themselves.
The right to a trial by jury means that if you are accused of a crime, you have the right to have the facts of your case determined by a jury of your peers - rather than a judge or magistrate.
It does not mean that the trial must occur immediately, on demand.
The trial IS the right, and that IS what is being delayed. So yes, the right IS delayed. Holy cow… forest for the tree…
1 Like
No, the trial isn’t the right. That doesn’t even make sense, as a sentence.
If I was accused of murder, I would have the right to be tried by a jury of my peers.
I would not have the right to choose the date of my trial.
Be careful Texas they might be heading your way considering everything else from California is. I just saw were Oracle was moving to Texas that is a fortune 100 company that’s a huge deal and could kick off a domino effect.
That really isn’t true. Anyone entering the jail from the outside can potentially spread CCPV to the captive population.
That would include all visitors, guards, staff, atty’s and new prisoners .
Well there’s two ways to take that, one being that if the parties to the trial want a jury trial it can be delayed until after the CCPV emergency is over and that the courts would then only proceed with cases in which a jury trial is not sought.
They cannot constitutionally simply waive the right to trial by jury.
If you’re going to be a lawyer you’d best get used to pedantry because it is at the heart and soul of legaleze.
You cannot have a “speedy trial” as guaranteed under our constitution and have it put off indefinitely because you choose to exercise your right to a trial by a jury of your peers.
2 Likes
Not very likely.
Our PD and SDPT cannot even arrest someone now unless it’s violent felony because the jails will not accept them.
We had a recent drug bust in which 4 “young people” were each charged with 10 felony counts of trafficking in controlled substances and even though they were from out of state they had to each be released simply with a citation.
Good lord, they have suspended jury trials and thus by definition they have suspended the right to both speedy trial and jury trials indefinitely.
That isn’t even arguable.
1 Like
zantax
117
I’d agree on speedy trial but, no trial taking place, no right to a jury. At least I hope we don’t have a right to a trial because I don’t want one. But even on speedy, speedy doesn’t mean immediate.
Low level offenders I understand.
But those incarcerated for violent crimes?
A high five to Sheriff Barnes.
“Speedy” means you are not held indefinitely pending trial and that’s what they’ve done here since the suspension is open ended.
Many times it is the choice of the dfendant and their lawyers to delay a trial so that public outrage of the event dies down or in hopes of finding exculpatory evidence but the state cannot hold you indefinitely against your will without trial.
There is a consitutional conflict here on both “speedy” and “jury” trial grounds.
They’d be on a lot more solid grounds if in their decision they said something along the lines of, “This will be reviewed every 90 days pending changes in Covid Pandemic conditions”.
If it continues past 180 days I think plaintiff atty’s will be on solid grounds moving it up the ladder.
1 Like
zantax
120
Do we know they didn’t have such language in the order? In any case, sure, if it goes on too long it will then be a constitutional problem. Have to set up virtual trials or something.
