In an unpublished decision issued on March 10, 2009, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed aggravated robbery conviction despite a claim by the defendant that he was denied the right to a speedy trial. Judge Worke wrote the decision in State v. Dahir.
Under the state and federal constitution, in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.” Minnesota courts apply a four-part test to determine whether a defendant’s speedy-trial right has been violated: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) whether and when the defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial; and (4) the prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay.
In Minnesota, following a speedy-trial demand, the trial shall commence within 60 days of the demand unless good cause is shown. Delay beyond 60 days raises a presumption that a defendant’s speedy-trial right has been violated, and requires further inquiry into whether a violation has occurred. Judge Worke opined that "Appellant made a speedy-trial demand on August 7, 2007. Appellant’s trial commenced nearly four months later on December 3, 2007; therefore, further inquiry is necessary to determine whether a violation has occurred."
The reason for delay is closely related to the length of delay, and different weights are assigned to different reasons. A deliberate attempt to delay trial to harm the defense is weighed most heavily against the state. But, the Court found "that is not the case here because the delay was caused by court-calendar congestion and the fact that a new judge took over appellant’s case." While delays caused by overcrowded courts are weighed against the state because the state is ultimately responsible for such circumstances, this type of delay weighs less heavily against the state.
Assertion of the right to a speedy trial need not be formal or technical, and it is determined by the circumstances. A court must assess “the frequency and intensity" of a defendant’s assertion of a speedy trial demand. However, Dahir demanded his right to a speedy trial and, at the same time, waived that right to the extent that his trial would occur slightly beyond the 60-day period. His attorney then agreed to a November 14 or a December 3 trial date, and the trial commenced on December 3. Judge Worke found this factor is neutral because, despite Dahir's clear demand, his attorney agreed to the continued trial date.
Whether a defendant has been prejudiced by a delay encompasses three concerns: (1) preventing oppressive pretrial incarceration, (2) minimizing the anxiety of the accused, and (3) limiting impairment of the defense. Dahir argued that he experienced prejudice because he was subject to pretrial incarceration and could not make bail, was the subject of anxiety and his defense was "likely harmed" because of the delay. All three arguments failed.
The Court concluded that Dahir's "constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated." Certain factors, such as the length of the delay and his assertion of the right to a speedy trial, favor him. But because the trial date was continued for reasons beyond the control of the state and because [he] was not prejudiced by the delay, he is not entitled to relief."
The criminal attorneys with the Brown Law Offices, P.A. are leaders in representing criminal defendants. Cynthia Brown, a founding partner in the firm, is a former Minnesota prosecutor and criminal investigator who has been interviewed by ABC News. To contact our firm, please call 763-323-6555 or complete a free case consultation form.
