Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

Speedy Trial

A couple of notes on speedy trial issues....

First, last week in State v. Hull the Ohio Supreme Court held that the speedy trial statute doesn't apply after an appellate court's vacation of a no contest plea.  There'd been a contrary holding from our district two years ago in State v. Parker.  Even Parker had held that speedy trial didn't apply after reversal of a verdict, so now the law is crystal clear:  if you've got a case that came back from the court of appeals, for whatever reason, the only speedy trial rights that apply are constitutional.  I'm not entirely comfortable with the decision -- it really doesn't engage in any more analysis than that the legislature didn't mention remands when it passed the statute -- but it's not too far-fetched, either, and it at least has the virtue of clarifying the law.

The other day a lawyer asked me the effect of speedy trial and reindictment, more particularly, whether the time runs during the period between dismissal and reindictment.  This is pretty much of a no-brainer:  it doesn't.  The time under the original indictment is counted, at least when the new indictment is based on the same facts as the original one, and then picks up again when the defendant is arrested or arraigned under the new one, according to State v. Broughton, 62 OSt2d 253. 

A couple of caveats to that.  First, if the defendant is held in jail or on bail during the interval, the time does count.  Speedy trial is calculated when there is a charge pending against the defendant, and if he's in jail or on bail, it's still pending.  Second, there's a contrary holding out of the 1st District way back in 1976, in State v. Justice, 49 OApp2d 46, where the state dismissed a DWI case, then refiled, and the court held that the time should be calculated from the original arrest, with no tolling.  You can always run that up the flagpole and see who salutes (and hope that the judge and prosecutor don't know any better), but I'm not too fond of citing cases that were decided back during the Ford administration, especially when there's an intervening Supreme Court case that blows you away.

Search

Recent Entries

  • September 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Prior consistent statements, whether State v. Hand is applied retroactively, and a big Coming Attraction
  • September 11, 2017
    Case Update
    Looking back at Melendez-Diaz, and the 8th goes 0 for 2 in the Supreme Court
  • September 8, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Pro bono work, screwed-up appeals, and is Subway shorting their customers?
  • September 5, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    The barriers to expungement, jury verdict forms, and hybrid representation
  • August 31, 2017
    Constructive possession
    Constructive possession is 9/10ths of the law
  • August 29, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A traffic stop found Samson Primm in possession of a few grams of marijuana, but he hires a lawyer and files a motion to suppress the stop. On the day of trial, the City asks to dismiss the case. Primm...
  • August 28, 2017
    Truth in plea bargaining
    So I got a brochure last week from Judge Donnelly over at the Common Pleas court. As you can see, it's a panel discussion on plea bargaining. The judge asked me to get out the word, so I just sort...
  • August 15, 2017
    Summer Break
    Got a bunch of stuff to do over the next couple weeks, and with the slowdown in the courts, it's a good time to take a break. I'll be back here on August 28. See you then....
  • August 11, 2017
    Friday Musings
    Drug trafficking, ADA lawsuit abuse, and e-filing
  • August 10, 2017
    Case Update
    Waiting on SCOTUS; two Ohio Supreme Court decisions