MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS: Speedy Trial: Generally

2013 (September Term)

United States v. Danylo, 73 M.J. 183 (in calculating the number of days elapsed for a speedy trial claim, do not count the first day, but count the last day).   

(in addition to the Sixth Amendment, Article 10, UCMJ, and the RCM 707 afford an accused a right to a speedy trial).   

(Article 62(c), UCMJ, provides that delays resulting from an appeal under Article 62 shall be excluded from speedy trial analysis unless an appropriate authority determines that the appeal was filed solely for the purpose of delay with the knowledge that it was totally frivolous and without merit; the Supreme Court gives Congress the highest deference in ordering military affairs under its constitutional mandate to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval Forces; nevertheless, Article 62(c) does not totally immunize the Courts of Criminal Appeals against judicial review of the timeliness of their decisions). 

(in conducting a speedy trial analysis, a court breaks down the periods of delay, analyzes the reasons for each, and may express concern with some but not other periods of delay). 

2012 (September Term)

United States v. Wilson, 72 M.J. 347 (an accused’s assertion of his speedy trial right is entitled to strong evidentiary weight in determining whether he was deprived of the right). 

2005


United States v. Mizgala, 61 M.J. 122 (courts have uniformly held that a guilty plea constitutes a waiver of an accused’s rights under the Speedy Trial Act; however, the Speedy Trial Act does not apply to offenses under the UCMJ).

 

2003

United States v. Brevard, 58 MJ 124 (where the Government had a reasonable, good faith belief under United States v. Melanson, 53 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (holding that a final accounting of pay is a condition precedent to a lawful discharge) that appellant had not been lawfully or fraudulently discharged when it decided to proceed initially on the underlying charges rather than on the issue of fraudulent separation, it acted with reasonable diligence for speedy trial purposes).

1999

United States v. McLaughlin, 50 MJ 217 (the Court rejects the notion that there is a “magic number” of days in pretrial confinement which would give rise to a presumption of a speedy trial violation; but see RCM 707).


Home Page |  Opinions & Digest  |  Daily Journal  |  Scheduled Hearings  |  Search Site