What Are My Rights To A Speedy Trial In Albuquerque New Mexico?

 

WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS TO A SPEEDY TRIAL IN ALBUQUERQUE NEW MEXICO?

 

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.” At the heart of the right to a speedy trial is preventing prejudice to someone that has been accused of committing a crime.

 

SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS AND METRO COURT’S 182 DAY RULE IN ALBUQUERQUE

 

In Metro Court Albuquerque, in a common case without procedural issues, the State has 182 days from the date of arraignment to commence trial.  This rule is affectionately known as the “182 day rule.”  The rule can be affected by events such as a mistrial, one’s failure to appear, an extension of time, etc., but with the typical case the trial must commence within 182 days from the date of one’s arraignment.  If the State is unable to meet this burden the case will be dismissed with prejudice – which essentially means that the State cannot re-file the charges – because one has been deprived of one’s Sixth Amendment rights.

 

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL IN SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN NEW MEXICO

 

In District Court the crimes and possible penalties are enhanced relative to Metro Court New Mexico, and consequently the 182 day rule does not apply in District Court.  As such, there isn’t a bright line rule that requires one’s case to be dismissed if a trial does not commence within 182 days – or any precise period of time.  Instead, the Court engages in a relatively complex balancing test that examines four factors when determining if one has been deprived of their right to a speedy trial.

 

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL — LENGTH OF DELAY

 

First, the Court will consider the length of the delay.  An individual must first show that the delay was greater than 12 months, making the delay “presumptively prejudicial” – if the case is defined as a “simple case” and does not involve complex issues such as conspiracy or the like. Assuming that one can meet the 12 month threshold, the Court then examines the length of the delay.  The greater the delay the more this first factor will weigh against the State. Case law has demonstrated that six years of delay “far exceeds the threshold needed to State a speedy trial claim.” See Dogget v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 652.  Moreover, in State v. Bergfeld, the Court held that “[f]ive years delay attributable to government’s mishandling of [the case] . . . creates a strong presumption of prejudice.” 280 F.3d 486, 489-91.  Nevertheless, remember that delay is just one factor, out of four, that the Court considers when determining if one’s Sixth Amendment rights have been violated.

 

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL — REASON FOR DELAY

 

The second factor involves the reason for the delay.  If the reason for the delay is due to the State’s deliberate attempt to postpone the trial, then this factor will weigh heavily against the State.  On the other hand, negligence or administrative delay – such as overcrowded dockets – is weighed less heavily against the State.

 

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL — FORCE AND FREQUENCY

 

The third factor involves the “force and frequency” that one asserts one’s right to a speedy trial.  Sixth Amendment rights are fundamental rights.  Therefore, one does not lose this right simply because one fails to assert it.  Nevertheless, the court considers how often and how loudly one asserts their right to a speedy trial before determining whether one’s right to a speedy trial has been violated.

 

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL — PREJUDICE SUFFERED BY DELAY

 

The fourth and last element that the Court considers is the prejudice that one has suffered due to the delay.  When considering this last element the Court evaluates the three core interests of the speedy trial right: (1) preventing oppressive pretrial incarceration, (2) minimizing a defendant’s anxiety and concern, and (3) limiting the possibility of impairment to the defense. Regarding the first two factors of this element, the Court believes that some degree of oppression and anxiety is inherent for every individual awaiting trial.  Hence, these two factors will only weigh in the Defendant’s favor where the pretrial incarceration or anxiety is undue.  Moreover, if one is unable to show a “particularized showing of prejudice – such as the death to a key witness, lost evidence, etc. – then the three factors listed above must weigh heavily in Defendant’s favor. Nevertheless, a showing of “particularized prejudice” is not required when the delay is great and attributable to the government.  Additionally, the presumption that the pretrial delay has prejudiced the Defendant increases as the delay increases.   As you can see the fourth element, standing by itself, involves a number of factors that the Court considers when reaching it’s ultimate determination.

 

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL — BALANCING TEST

 

In the end the balancing test of elements one through four requires one to demonstrate particularized prejudice – that they have been prejudiced by the delay in a specific and identifiable respect.  If one is unable to demonstrate how they were specifically prejudiced, one must then demonstrate that the delay was great and that the delay was attributable to the government.

As illustrated above – for felony charges that are brought in District Court –the process for asserting a violation of one’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial is complex when compared to traffic offenses and misdemeanors that are brought in Metro Court.  As we have seen, in Metro Court the State generally has a hard and fast rule that they must commence trial within 182 days from the date of arraignment.  In District Court one is first required to demonstrate that the length of the delay was at least one year.  Only after one has satisfied this requirement will the Court consider the four elements addressed above, to determine if one’s right to a speedy trial has been violated.

 

(505) SANCHEZ HELPS NEW MEXICANS UNDERSTAND THEIR RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL IN ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO

 

Knowledge is power.  Know your right to a speedy trial in Albuquerque, New Mexico.    Matthew Legan Sanchez is an experienced speedy rights lawyer in Albuquerque, New Mexico.   Sanchez can be reached by calling (505) SANCHEZ.