Must we wait like JOB for Justice? The men with the machine guns and the electronic keys to the iron sliding doors will kill us if we do not. And we will be called “terrorists” if we try to remove those men. Must all those who languish in prison for no good reason be resigned that the injustices they have suffered will not be righted in their lifetimes, that their lives must be ruined to satisfy the American Public’s sadistic lust for blood and punishment? It is good to see that a Vermont case has finally reached the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the whole Speedy Trial issue. The case made it there through the usual channels, but Nancy Grant is still on probation (after a five month revocation last year) for having attempted to assist Florida prisoners who have suffered much worse than the Vermont inmates—the stories of Nancy’s “beneficiaries” (the people she tried to help) were on the whole much worse than what happened in Vermont. How Long, Lord? How Long?
Speedy trial issue lands before US Supreme Court
Jan 11th, 2009 | BENNINGTON, Vt. — After he was charged with hitting his girlfriend in the face, career criminal Michael Brillon sat in jail without bail for nearly three years, going through six public defenders before being tried for assault.
The delays paid off — for Brillon: A Vermont court threw out his conviction and freed him from prison last spring, saying his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial had been violated.
Now, the U.S. Supreme Court is taking up the case this week, trying to decide if delays caused by public defenders can deprive a criminal defendant of that right. In particular: Whether governments can be blamed for such delays since they’re the ones who assign and pay the lawyers for indigent defendants.
Forty states and 15 organizations — state governments, county governments, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, a victim’s rights’ group — are backing the Vermont prosecutor’s appeal of the ruling, worried that if it stands criminal suspects will try to game the system and get the result Brillon did.
“You’re greasing that slippery slope,” said David Parkhurst, an attorney with the National Governors Association, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the prosecutor’s appeal. “That’s the big concern here.”
Brillon, a 46-year-old construction worker whose criminal past includes convictions for sexual assault on a minor, felony obstruction of justice and cocaine possession, was charged with aggravated domestic assault over the 2001 incident with his girlfriend, who was the mother of his child.
Held without bail, his case inched along as lawyer after lawyer asked for postponements and eventually withdrew or was replaced at Brillon’s request.
The first got an evidentiary hearing postponed because he was moving his law practice. He was fired by Brillon, who claimed the lawyer had failed to communicate with him.
The second reported a conflict of interest that prevented him from continuing — a day after he’d been appointed.
The third quit after telling a judge Brillon threatened his life during a break in a hearing.
Brillon fired the fourth, and the fifth quit, citing changes to his contract with the state public defender’s office.
The sixth took the case to trial in 2004, when Brillon was convicted and sentenced to 12 to 20 years in prison because he was a habitual offender with three prior felony convictions.
However, Brillon appealed on the speedy trial claim, and the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in his favor, saying the delays were the fault of the state. The ruling outraged victim’s rights’ advocates and others, both because Brillon was freed and for fear that other suspects would take his cue, hoping for a similar outcome.
“The motivation would certainly be there,” said Erica Marthage, one of the Vermont prosecutors who will appear at Tuesday’s oral argument before the Supreme Court in Washington.
Brillon’s current lawyer, whose position has been buttressed by friend-of-the-court briefs by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union, acknowledges that Brillon had a role in some of the delays.
Still, says attorney William Nelson, the criminal justice system is primarily responsible.
Brillon was without any appointed counsel at all for six months and was held without bail for nearly three years, despite telling judges he wanted to go to trial, Nelson said.
The U.S. Solicitor General, representing the federal government, has filed a brief denouncing the Vermont ruling and is seeking permission to use 10 minutes of prosecutor Christina Rainville’s allotted 30-minute oral argument to make the case for striking down the Brillon ruling.
Maureen Dimino, indigent defense counsel for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said cases like Brillon’s will become more common as cash-strapped states cut funding for public defender services, burdening those lawyers with so many cases that they seek more delays to prepare.
“This is going to become a bigger and bigger issue due to the economic crunch. The states are failing to fund these systems, causing these undue delays,” she said.
Salon provides breaking news articles from the Associated Press as a service to its readers, but does not edit the AP articles it publishes.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.