Fortunately, Michigan`s court rules offer a possible remedy for release from detention if problems with a speedy trial are apparent. RCM 6.004(C) states: « In a criminal case in which the defendant has been detained for a period of 180 days or more to be tried for the same crime or a crime based on the same conduct or resulting from the same criminal episode, or in a misdemeanor case in which the defendant has been detained for a period of 28 days or more, To be tried for the same crime or a crime committed on the basis of the same conduct or as a result of the same criminal episode, the accused must be released on personal recognition, unless the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that the accused is likely not to appear at future proceedings or to pose a danger to another person or the community. In calculating the 28-day and 180-day time limits, the court must exclude: The Michigan Supreme Court adopted the Barker Rule in People v Collins, 388 Mich 680; 202 NW2d 769 (1972). In the event of a delay of 18 months or more, discrimination against the accused is presumed and the onus is on the prosecution to rebut the presumption. ID at 695. If the delay is less than 18 months, the burden of proof of the damage caused by the defect lies with the defendant. ID at 695. « The time limit for assessing whether the right to a speedy trial has been violated runs from the date of the accused`s arrest. » People v. Patton, 285 Mich App 229, 236; 775 NW2d 610 (2009). However, the reason for the delay will be examined by the court of first instance, and any delay will be attributed either to the prosecutor or to the accused.
People v. Ross, 145 Mich App 483; 378 NW2d 517 (1985). « In all criminal proceedings, the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. and to be assisted by counsel in his defence. The Michigan Supreme Court overturned the appeals court`s decision and sent the case back for a new trial. The Supreme Court said the closing of the courtroom by the trial court was a manifest error during most of the trial due to an isolated and benign interaction between a jury and an observer. Since the deprivation of the accused`s constitutional right to a public trial was a structural error, it clearly affected the rights of the accused. In Barker v. Wingo, 407 US 514; 92 p.ct.
2182; 33 L.Ed.2d. 101 (1972), the United States Supreme Court has formulated a four-factor test to be taken into account in determining whether the accused`s right to an expeditious trial has been violated: Trial: Both the prosecution and the defence make opening statements, present evidence, hear witnesses and make closing statements. The jury then receives instructions from the judge and deliberates to reach a verdict. In most cases, the defendant has the right to a jury trial. The jury must determine beyond a doubt that the defendant is guilty of the alleged crime. The court went on to state that denying the defendant`s constitutional right to a public trial as a structural error would have affected the defendant`s substantive rights, as it had significantly affected the public reputation, fairness, and integrity of the trial. As such, it met the requirements of the simple error standard for reversal. Since neither the evidence nor the prosecution rebutted the presumption, the court found that setting aside the intermediate court`s judgment was warranted and sent the case back for a new trial. (1) delays resulting from other proceedings involving the accused, including, but not limited to, jurisdiction and criminal liability proceedings, pre-trial applications, interim appeals, and the hearing of other charges, Nancy Eaton-Gordon is a partner at Jackson Eaton-Gordon and Associates in Adrian, Michigan, and is known as one of the leading criminal defense and estate planning attorneys in Lenawee County. Asked about the right to a speedy trial, Ms Eaton-Gordon commented: « This is an issue that affects both my criminal record and my estate planning work. From a criminal law perspective, the Speedy Trials Act 1974 is still used in normal circumstances.
These times are anything but ordinary. When it comes to estate planning, many relatives of criminal defendants come to make wills and medical powers of attorney. We are in a time of unknown.