ILNews

Judges rule man's right to speedy trial was violated

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The state had an affirmative duty to pursue prosecution of a defendant under his right to a speedy trial, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today. The appellate court also disapproved of the state’s blanket policy to not attempt to secure the attendance of an accused incarcerated person in a foreign jurisdiction until he has finished serving his sentence there.

In Alphonzo Fisher v. State of Indiana, No. 10A01-1001-CR-21, Alphonzo Fisher challenged the denial of his motion to discharge. Fisher was charged with Class A felony dealing in cocaine in June 2001 with a pre-trial hearing set for December 2001. At the time of the hearing, Fisher was in federal custody on an unrelated case.

In 2006, Fisher’s attorney filed notice of availability for prosecution and an objection to the delay of prosecution. In December 2007, he filed a motion to discharge because his constitutional and statutory speedy trial rights had been violated, which the trial court denied. The trial court granted Fisher’s motion for transport for the final pre-trial conference in December 2008, which the state objected to because it would violate the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. Fisher objected and filed two pro se motions to dismiss in 2009, which were denied.

On interlocutory appeal, the trial court asked whether the state has an affirmative obligation to pursue prosecution under the circumstances of Fisher’s case. The appellate court said yes, and even the state acknowledged its affirmative duty to pursue prosecution of Fisher.

But the appellate court also had to examine the four factors under Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), to determine whether Fisher’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated. They found the length of the delay in the case to be long and took issue with the state’s broad policy of foregoing prosecution of a defendant until the defendant completes serving time in a foreign jurisdiction. The policy is not an acceptable justification for delaying his trial.

“We certainly cannot approve of a blanket policy to sit back and wait for a defendant to complete his sentence in a foreign jurisdiction, especially under the facts of this case where the delay in prosecution is substantial,” wrote Judge Ezra Friedlander. “While there may very well be valid reasons underlying the State’s express policy to delay prosecution until such time as a defendant finishes serving time in a foreign jurisdiction, the State’s affirmative duty to diligently, and in good faith, pursue prosecution of defendants is the overriding factor to consider.”

That Fisher asserted his right to a speedy trial also weighs in his favor, noted the judge. They decided not to address the fourth Barker factor – actual prejudice – in light of the excessive delay, inexcusable explanation for the delay and Fisher’s assertion of his right to a speedy trial. They reversed the trial court and remanded with instructions to dismiss the underlying action against Fisher.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT