Rarely does a trial court dismiss a case for lack of a speedy trial, and Judge Suntag was no exception, even though the second-degree aggravated domestic assault case took 3 years to come to trial and the defendant was detained in jail during this extraordinary length of time. Cases in which the accused is detained are supposed to take priority over all other matters before the court. The defendant was ultimately convicted and sentenced to 12 to 20 years in prison as a habitual offender. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reversed, in a 3-2 decision -- now the case may be on its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. State v. Brillon, 2008 VT 35, 955 A.2d 1108. If the supremes had grounded their decision on the Vermont Constitution, (ie., the right to obtain justice promptly and without delay, under Chapter One, Article Four of the Vermont Constitution; and the court's duty to administer justice without unnecessary delay, under Chapter Two, Section Twenty-Eight of the Vermont Constitution), instead of the right to a speedy trial found in the 6th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the decision would not be subject to review by the nine justices in Washington. What I want to know is why, if the defendant's trial was in June of 2004, was his appeal not decided until March of 2008 -- all the while he remains in prison for a decision in his case?
0 comments:
Post a Comment