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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT