Speedy Trial Delay Caused by Inaction of Assigned Counsel is Not Attributable to the State Absent a Systemic Breakdown in Public Defense System

Claims of constitutional speedy trial violations are considered under the Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), balancing test, in which the conduct of both the defendant and prosecution are weighed. In this case, there was a delay of three years regarding which the state court concluded that "a significant portion of the delay in bringing the case to trial must be attributed to the state [as] most of the delay was caused by the inability or unwillingness of assigned counsel to move the case forward." The Vermont Supreme Court dismissed the prosecution.

The USSCt reversed. It held that assigned counsel's failure to move the case forward was not the fault of the state due, in part, to the defendant's disagreeable behavior toward appointed counsel. "[A] defendant's deliberate attempt to disrupt proceedings [should] be weighed heavily against the defendant." However, "[t]he general rule attributing to the defendant delay caused by assigned counsel is not absolute. Delay caused by a systemic 'breakdown in the public defender system' . . . could be charged to the State"

Vermont v. Brillion, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-88.pdf


With this case, along with United States v. Hayes and Arizona v. Johnson, Justice Ginsburg has hit the Trifecta in bad rulings for criminal defendants this term.