« Ind. Decisions - Advocacy group heralds court decision: Ruling on Merrillville water service remanded back to IURC | Main | Ind. Law - Adult business dispute draws top lawyers to fight in Spencer »
Monday, January 16, 2006
Ind. Courts - Time-limits rule worries prosecutors
"Time-limits rule worries prosecutors: 3 suspects freed because cases weren't tried within 6 months" is the headline to a story in the Indianapolis Star today by Richard D. Walton. Some quotes:
The Indiana criminal rule has been on the books for decades. But its importance was never more evident than last week when it resulted in three criminal suspects going free. * * *The ILB had an entry about the time-limits on Dec. 4, 2005, based on a Fort Wayne Journal Gazette story headlined "Court ruling filling up calendars: State justices decide jailed defendants must be tried within 6 months of arrest." The entry includes links to the 8/26/05 Supreme Court ruling in State ex rel. Michael Bramley v. Tipton Circuit Court, plus an earlier story from 9/1/05 titled "Man jailed for 526 days on murder charge freed."Designed to ensure a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial, Rule 4 requires prosecutors to bring a case to trial within specified time limits. But prosecutors are finding it increasingly difficult to meet the deadlines in an era of DNA specimens and blood spatters, which take time to collect and analyze, and which the public now expects. * * *
Rule 4 requires that an incarcerated person be released from jail if the case is not brought to trial within six months of the charge or arrest. In August, the Indiana Supreme Court reinforced the requirement, finding in favor of a suspect in Tipton County who said he was entitled to be released because he had not been tried within the time period, plus a link to the Supreme Court's 8/26/05 ruling in State ex rel. Michael Bramley v. Tipton Circuit Court.
The rule has exceptions. When delays are caused by the defendant -- for example, by seeking continuances -- the clock stops and the time does not count against the prosecution.
Steve Johnson, executive director of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council, says that can be a tough call for a judge.
"It's an extremely complex rule," he said. "To me it's probably the closest thing in criminal law to tax practice: trying to see who's responsible for what delay and how many days' delay are you charged with?" * * *
Under a provision of Rule 4, a defendant is supposed to be tried within 70 days of seeking a speedy trial. This didn't happen, partly because Prosecutor Jacobs was not informed when the Jennings County court officially assumed jurisdiction in the case, and the clock started to run.
Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, while saying it's rare for a defendant to be released in Marion County because of Rule 4, says it has happened. "There are times when we have a witness who may be unavailable. It surprises us when they fail to appear. And then you can't go forward with the case."
Jacobs [Nancy Jacobs, interim Washington County prosecutor], who is appealing the dismissal of charges against the Jacksons, said that in this time of complex forensics, the time restraints are problematic. "I think 70 days places an incredible burden upon prosecutors," she said. "In some cases this (requirement) might force a prosecutor to go to trial without evidence that they might otherwise present to a jury."
Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 16, 2006 06:50 AM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions | Indiana Courts