Know Your Rights:  The Right to a Speedy Trial

In Wisconsin, the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental protection guaranteed by both the U.S. and Wisconsin Constitutions and is further reinforced by state statutes. However, these rights differ in how they are applied and the remedies they offer when violated.

Constitutional Right to a Speedy Trial

The constitutional right to a speedy trial is enshrined in the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Wisconsin Constitution. This right attaches the moment a defendant is officially accused, whether by indictment, arrest, or any other formal charge.

Courts determine whether this right has been violated by applying a balancing test, considering four key factors:

1. Length of the Delay: How long has it taken for the case to proceed to trial?
2. Reason for the Delay: Why has there been a delay? Was it intentional or due to unavoidable circumstances?
3. Assertion of the Right: Did the defendant assert their right to a speedy trial, or did they acquiesce to the delays?
4. Prejudice to the Defendant: Has the delay negatively impacted the defendant's ability to prepare or present their defense?

If a court finds that the constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated, the charges against the defendant must be dismissed. This dismissal is a severe remedy, reflecting the importance of protecting this constitutional right.

Statutory Right to a Speedy Trial

In addition to constitutional protections, Wisconsin law provides a statutory right to a speedy trial under Wis. Stat. § 971.10. This statute is more specific and mandates that a defendant charged with a felony must be brought to trial within 90 days of making a proper demand for a speedy trial.

Unlike the constitutional right, the remedy for violating the statutory speedy trial right is not the dismissal of charges. Instead, the defendant is entitled to be released from custody or from the obligations of bond while awaiting trial. However, the statute allows for continuances if the court determines that delaying the trial serves the interests of justice more than adhering strictly to the 90-day timeline.

Key Cases and Application

• Beckett v. State: Reinforces the constitutional speedy trial right, emphasizing the need for a case-by-case analysis.
• State v. McBride and State v. Butler: Highlight the application of the balancing test in determining constitutional violations.
• State ex rel. Rabe v. Ferris and State ex rel. Hager v. Marten: Demonstrate how the statutory right to a speedy trial operates, focusing on the 90-day requirement.

Conclusion

Understanding the differences between your constitutional and statutory rights to a speedy trial is crucial. While both are designed to ensure that you receive a timely trial, they offer different protections and remedies. The constitutional right is more flexible but can lead to the dismissal of charges if violated, whereas the statutory right provides a clear timeframe and focuses on the defendant's release if that timeframe is not met.

These rights are vital in safeguarding your liberty and ensuring that justice is served without unnecessary delay.  

At Melms Law, we are committed to protecting your rights and ensuring that justice is served.  Call us at 715-525-9839 and schedule a free consultation and find out more. 

This post is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. If you have been charged with a crime or believe you were illegally detained, we strongly recommend seeking the assistance of an attorney. Contact us at Melms Law for a free consultation to discuss your situation and explore your legal options.

By Attorney Frederick Melms

Dated: July 29, 2024.