Coalition letter to Governor Greg Abbott, of Texas, regarding his executive order (GA-13) refusing to allow release of inmates from state detention facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

As courts shuttered their doors at the onset of COVID-19, the number of civil and criminal cases pending quickly piled up. Over a year into the pandemic, courts now face significant backlogs, presenting both logistical dilemmas for administrators and speedy trial concerns for individuals facing trial.

Asset Forfeiture Abuse Task Force co-chair E.E. (Bo) Edwards's testimony to the House Judiciary Committee regarding the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (H.R. 1916, 1995) and federal asset forfeiture programs.

Asset Forfeiture Abuse Task Force co-chairs E.E. (Bo) Edwards, David B. Smith, and Richard Troberman's written statement to the House Judiciary Committee regarding the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (H.R. 1916, 1995) and federal asset forfeiture programs.

The Sixth Amendment guarantee to a speedy trial is a cornerstone of the American criminal legal system. Its broad cloak serves to protect the interests of the accused, witnesses, the government and the community in ensuring meaningful and timely resolution to criminal charges. 

The Sixth Amendment guarantee to a speedy trial is a cornerstone of the American criminal legal system. Its broad cloak serves to protect the interests of the accused, witnesses, the government and the community in ensuring meaningful and timely resolution to criminal charges. Today, as judges, prosecutors, and defendants begin to navigate the aftermath of long periods of court closures and the resulting backlog of cases, stakeholders face new questions and challenges in meeting obligations to community health and safety while also protecting core constitutional rights.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that defendants’ right to a speedy trial was violated because they waited more than five years for trial.

Amicus curiae brief of the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Vermont and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Argument: The decision of the Vermont Supreme Court should be affirmed. State and federal case law support charging the state with unreasonable delay of trial (Barker v. Wingo) when the defendant is forced to terminate his procrastinating public defenders more than once in a three year period.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Pascal F. Calogero, Jr., Former Chief Justice, Louisiana Supreme Court in support of Petitioner.

Argument: “We show below that the lack of funding that caused Petitioner’s prosecution to be delayed for five years did indeed reflect a systemic breakdown in the public defender system – in Louisiana in general and in Calcasieu Parish in particular. That breakdown was the direct and foreseeable result of deliberate decisions made and actions taken over a period of years by state and local officials. Hence those five years not only could but should be charged to the state under Barker and Brillon. A contrary ruling would encourage states to disregard indigent defendants’ Sixth Amendment rights, including their right to a speedy trial.” (Br. at 3.).

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: Guilt-determination and sentencing historically were inseparable and speedy trial protections apply to both. The interests set forth in Barker require protection at sentencing. Extended pre-sentence incarceration is oppressive. Delays in the sentencing phases of a trial exacerbate anxiety and concern. Delays in the sentencing phase of trial impair defendants' abilities to exercise their legal rights with the courts. The Due Process Clause insufficiently protects the rights guaranteed by the speedy trial provision of the Sixth Amendment.