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

  • April 20, 2017
    The Supreme Court takes a look at the trial tax
    And you thought this was the week you only had to worry about income taxes
  • April 18, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Remembering Warren Zevon, and the Fourth Amendment lives
  • April 17, 2017
    Case Update
    Structural error, prejudice, and police run amok.
  • April 13, 2017
    Some arguments on sentencing
    Why oral arguments can be fun, even when they're not yours
  • April 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Oh fun: declarations against interest v. non-hearsay. Also, the difference between not guilty and innocent, and Ohio's statute penalizing the refusal to take chemical test in a DUI case goes bye-bye
  • April 11, 2017
    Case Update
    Filibusters, and appellate cases on all the ways lawyers can screw up.
  • April 7, 2017
    Change of course
    A new approach in my client-attorney relationships
  • April 4, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A true rocket docket, and Anthony Sowell pops up again
  • April 3, 2017
    Case Update
    Free merchant speech, an argument on Brady, another look at Creech
  • March 28, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Pro se motions, pro se defendants, and advice for deadbeat dads