Albuquerque Criminal Lawyer Blog

A bench warrant will typically toll the running of the 6 month speedy trial rule under the 6th Amendment. The time during which a defendant has absconded from the court will not run against the prosecution. In addition, there may be other extensions of time either for the benefit of the defense, or for good cause, for the State that will extend the 6 month rule.

The New Mexico Court of Appeals in State v. Martinez has addressed these two issues from an interesting perspective. In Martinez, a bench warrant was orally issued by the court due to the defendant's failure to appear at a hearing. However, a signed warrant was never filed with the court. Likewise, due to the failure of the defendant to appear at the hearing, the State had requested an extension of the 6 month speedy trial rule. Again, the Court issued an oral ruling extending the speedy trial rule without filing a signed order.

Neither of these oral orders was entered with the Court until after the 6 month rule had elapsed. The defendant with counsel then came to court armed with a Motion to Dismiss under the speedy trial rule. The District Court granted the motion and dismissed the case. Interestingly, the district court had made the mistake in its failure to file the written orders and accepted the consequences of the error.

The prosecutor filed an appeal arguing that the oral orders should be fully enforced, and that the dismissal was fundamentally in error. The New Mexico Court of Appeals disagreed stating that to show fundamental error, the state must "demonstrate the existence of circumstances that 'shock the conscience' or implicate the fundamental unfairness within the system that would undermine judicial integrity if left unchecked."

The Court of Appeals refused the State's arguments indicating no such error was present. In doing so, the Court pointed out that the State had 49 days during which it could have cured the problem with the oral orders prior to the expiration of the six month rule. The Court cited prior cases for the proposition that it is up to the State to get a case to trial. It is not the defendant's duty to bring himself to trial.

This case at first seems somewhat difficult to reconcile with State v. Garza where the New Mexico Supreme Court set forth speedy trial guidelines; 12 months for simple cases, 15 months for cases with intermediate complexity, and 18 months for complex cases. However, in that case, the State had moved for and been granted extensions of time. In Martinez, though the State had been granted extensions of time, the oral orders were deemed ineffective for these purposes.

It seems that despite the beating speedy trial rights took in Garza, the 6th Amendment will not stay down for the count. Seems the constitution has a strong chin.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The 10th Circuit Court Appeals addressed the 6th Amendment Right to a speedy trial in U.S. v. Seltzer. Though the constitutional protections under New Mexico law are typically more expansive than federal law, the 10th Circuit in the Seltzer case appears more respectful of the 6th Amendment than the recent New Mexico Supreme Court decision of State v. Garza.

In State v. Garza, the court set forth a sliding scale related to a criminal defendant's right to a speedy trial in New Mexico. The court suggested speedy trial parameters as follows: 1) 12 months for simple cases, 2) 15 months for cases with intermediate complexity, and 2) 18 months for complex cases. The New Mexico Supreme Court even allowed for some leeway in the these standards by stating that these time limits were mere thresholds for further inquiry.

The 10th Circuit in U.S. v. Seltzer set forth a number of considerations in the determination of whether or not a defendant's right to a speedy trial have been violated. The Court stated that a delay of more than one year from the date of arrest or indictment, whichever is earlier, was "presumptively prejudicial" to the defense. The court noted that in particularly complex cases, longer delays, even a two year delay might not be unreasonable. The court noted further that in straightforward cases, even a minor delay might be considered prejudicial and unreasonable.

The Court found that the charges against the defendant Seltzer related to counterfeiting, drug possession, and firearm possession by a felon were not complex and a delay of more than one year was presumptively unreasonable. The Court stated that even lesser delays might prove prejudicial in cases involving eyewitness testimony.

Once the presumption of prejudice has been found, it is up to the State to "provide an inculpable explanation for delays in speedy trial claims." The Court cited the 1972 United States Supreme Court case of Barker v. Wingo as follows: "A deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense should be weighted heavily against the government. A more neutral reason such as negligence or overcrowded courts should be weighted less heavily but nevertheless should be considered since the ultimate responsibility for such circumstances must rest with the government rather than with the defendant. Finally, a valid reason, such as a missing witness, should serve to justify appropriate delay." Thus the burden quickly shifts to the State to show a legitimate reason for any delay impacting the defendant's speedy trial rights. This burden becomes harder to meet in cases involving simple charges.

Unlike the New Mexico Court in State v. Garza, there is a heavy burden on the State to justify any delay impacting the defendant's 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial. New Mexico typically zealously protects the constitutional rights of its citizens. The protections under New Mexico's Constitution are generally much broader than under federal law. In State v. Garza, the burden appears to be on the defendant to prove prejudice, rather than on the State where the burden belongs. Hopefully, the New Mexico Supreme Court will take the lead of the 10th and revisit the 6th Amendment rights that are so important to due process and a fair trial.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

In the past, it was pretty well accepted in New Mexico metropolitan, municipal and magistrate court cases that the 6th Amendment Right to a speedy trial meant that the State had to bring its case to trial within 6 months. The Courts in Albuquerque followed this rule pretty closely. If the State failed to bring a case to trial within 6 months, the case was dismissed. The New Mexico Supreme Court threw this long established custom out in the case of State v. Garza (NM 2009).

In doing so, the court laid out some "guidelines" for speedy trial rights for the future. The guidelines are 12 months for simple cases, 15 months for cases with intermediate complexity, and 18 months for complex cases. The Court even took the teeth out of these requirements by saying that these guidelines were merely thresholds for further inquiry.

So what does this mean for you and your case? Suffice it to say it is not good. It is unclear how how this ruling will affect the criminal trial process in Albuquerque and throughout the courts of New Mexico. The standard leaves so much to interpretation that it seems judges can pretty well disregard the speedy trial rights of defendants if they so choose. It means also that the district attorneys will become even more negligent in the prosecution of their cases.

Walk into any metropolitan, municipal or magistrate court in the State on any given day, and you will see case after case after case where the prosecutor has failed to provide discovery, failed to make witnesses available, failed to meet statutory deadlines, and largely failed to prosecute their cases in a diligent manner. When this occurs, the prosecutor would typically be given warnings about being prepared the next time. Many judges would dismiss the cases the next time if the prosecutors came unprepared again.

In the past, the speedy trial rule provided some check on prosecutor's negligence of their files. The prosecutors had a deadline that they had to meet and this prevented them from ignoring a file and their responsibilities as prosecutors and attorneys. It seems now that they are free to prosecute their cases at their leisure with no real deadlines to insure their diligence.

The case of State v. Garza does more than infringe the rights of the defendant, who must be present at each trial setting only to hear the prosecutor is not ready. The defendant life is put on hold now for what at least for now is an indeterminate amount of time left to the whim of the particular judge.

Many people are not sympathetic to criminal defendants. In fact, most are downright hostile. What these folks might consider is the costs to the taxpayer of prosecutorial negligence. For each and every hearing to which they come unprepared, they have tied up the resources of their own office since they must be present prepared or not. They have tied up in many cases the office of the public defender who is funded by the taxpayer. Then they are tying up an already overburdened court. For each hearing, there must be a judge who is paid handsomely for his or her presence. There are guards, bailiffs, secretaries, court reporters, interpreters, and a host of other court personnel depending upon the case. This is hugely expensive. And now in a time of budget crisis for government across our country, the prosecutor has been written a blank check at the expense of the taxpayer.

Perhaps the Supreme Court has given judges leeway to stretch the speedy trial period over an indeterminate time. However, judges on an individual basis must still manage their courtrooms. They must manage their budgets. Ultimately, they must answer to taxpayers. But on a more mundane level, they must answer to themselves. Playing fast and loose with the speedy trial rule will cause their caseload to grow as case turnover slows to a crawl. Hopefully, if not motivated to protect the rights of the defendant, the courts will at least be motivated to manage their own workload.

Parrish Collins
Collins & Collins, P.C.
http://www.collinsattorneys.com