Case: State v. Sisco, II, No. 72165 (Mo. App. W.D., January 29, 2013).
Facts:
Defendant was arrested.
At some point the state dismissed the case and immediately re-filed it, causing delay in the case (almost 3 years went by between defendant’s arrest and his ultimate trial).
Defendant filed a timely motion for dismissal alleging violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial.
A hearing was held, evidence was taken, arguments were presented, and the trial court decided not to dismiss the case.
The trial continued and the jury convicted the defendant.
Defendant appeals the trial court denial of his motion for a speedy trial violation.
Law:
Violations of the right to a speedy trial should be easy to determine, right? Just pick a time duration, and then have a rule: once you arrest defendant you have 6 months to have a trial. Or 10 months. Or 20 months. But just make it a consistent rule and everyone would know that the State has [6/10/20] months to have a trial or it will be a violation of defendant’s constitutional speedy trial right.
But of course it’s not that simple. The United States Supreme Court provided the standard for analyzing claims of speedy trial violations in Baker v. Wingo. There it said that courts must analyze all the circumstances and weigh 4 specific factors: 1) the length of delay, 2) the reason for the delay, 3) the defendant’s assertion of the right, and 4) the prejudice to the defendant.
Analysis:
1) length was almost 3 years; in Missouri, a delay of 8 months is presumptively prejudicial (but that presumption can be rebutted, as it was here). This factor sided with Defendant.
2) the reason for the delay was both intentional (the state dismissed the charge and refilled to start over, causing delay) and innocent (the lead prosecutor got ill and a witness could not be found). This factor favors neither party.
3) defendant announced the exercise of his right. This factor sided with Defendant.
4) defendant’s defense was not prejudiced by the delay. Defendant did not show that his defense was eroded over time or that he lost access to evidence over time. Defendant did not show that the State’s evidence improved over time. This factor sided with the State (says the Court; in my opinion a 3 year delay in a trial is inexcusable, but my opinion doesn’t count…).
Case Conclusion: even though more factors sided with the defendant, and even though the appeals Court scolded the prosecutor in this case, the State still won. How is that possible? It’s because appeals are incredibly (almost impossibly) tough to win.
An appeals court will only reverse a trial court determination on a motion for dismissal if it finds an abuse of discretion, which is very rare. Only if a trial court ruling is “clearly against the logic of the circumstances before the court and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration” will it be found to have abused its discretion. Simply said, if ruling on a motion is horrible, but not shockingly horrible, it won’t get reversed; even if we can all agree it was a horrible decision, if it wasn’t shockingly horrible it will survive on appeal.
Summary:
1) it’s very rare when a judge will throw out a case simply because the State needs more time to prosecute (as in the nearly 3 years in this case). And even when the State dismisses and immediately re-files (obvious bad faith by the State), defendant still is not likely to win a motion for dismissal. In criminal matters, dismissing cases is an extreme power that trial judges rarely exercise.
2) do not think of criminal court appeals as simply a rematch with a 50/50 shot of winning? Whereas the outcome of a trial is unpredictable, the outcome of an overwhelmingly majority of appeals can be summarized in one word; “affirmed”. If you lose at trial you do not have a right to a redo, a 2nd chance, a rematch. An appeal is a limited right to allege trial court errors, and even if you prove a trial court error (hard to do), the appeals court can still allow that erroneous judgment to stand. With appeals, reversing trial court judgments is an extreme power that appellate justices rarely exercise.