STATE v PUZIO ALLEN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14628 I N THE SUPREME COuKr O THE STATE O F F Imwmw 1979 THE STATE O MXFANA, F P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vsGRJXDW PUZIO and CELESTE ALLEN, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal fran: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Thirteenth Judicial D i s t r i c t , Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Pbntana Mike WCarter, Assistant Attomey General, argued, Helena, M t a n a Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, Billings, Wntana Jock West argued, Deputy County Attomey, Billings, mntana For Respondents: mses, Tolliver and Wright, Billings, mntana Ralph S. Wright argued, Billings, lbntana John L. Adams argued, Billings, mntana -- Submitted: Decided : Filed: -KAY 1979 in -- M y 1, 1979 a Lrm~ 1979 30 &W J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of ! . t h e Court. D e f e n d a n t s w e r e a r r e s t e d on November 28, 1977, and s u b s e q u e n t l y c h a r g e d w i t h t h e crime o f c r i m i n a l p o s s e s s i o n T r i a l w a s s e t by t h e w i t h i n t e n t t o s e l l dangerous d r u g s . D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r O c t o b e r 1 0 , 1978, some t e n and o n e - h a l f months, o r 317 d a y s , a f t e r a r r e s t . On September 26, 1978, d e f e n d a n t P u z i o moved t o d i s m i s s t h e m a t t e r f o r l a c k o f a speedy t r i a l . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n . S t a t e a p p e a l s u n d e r s e c t i o n 95-2403, t i o n 46-20-103 R.C.M. The 1947, now sec- MCA. B e f o r e c o n s i d e r i n g t h e speedy t r i a l i s s u e , however, w e must c l a r i f y a q u e s t i o n o f t h e r e c o r d w e w i l l c o n s i d e r . Both p a r t i e s i n t h e i r b r i e f s make s t a t e m e n t s of f a c t conc e r n i n g t h e p a r o l e r e v o c a t i o n of d e f e n d a n t P u z i o which a r e n o t supported i n t h e record. The p a r t i e s on a p p e a l a r e bound by t h e r e c o r d and may n o t add a d d i t i o n a l f a c t s i n t h e i r b r i e f s o r by a p p e n d i c e s t h e r e t o . T h r i f t v. T h r i f t ( 1 9 1 8 ) , 54 Mont. 463, 1 7 1 P. 272; Farmers S t a t e Bank o f Conrad v . I v e r s o n ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 162 Mont. 1 3 0 , 509 P.2d 839. The statements of f a c t n o t contained i n t h e record concerning t h e p a r o l e r e v o c a t i o n o f d e f e n d a n t P u z i o have n o t been considered. I n S t a t e v . Tiedemann ( 1 9 7 8 ) , P.2d 1284, 1287, 35 St.Rep. Mont. 1705, 1706-07, , 584 t h i s Court d i s - cussed t h e r i g h t t o a speedy t r i a l : "The r i g h t t o a s p e e d y t r i a l i s g u a r a n t e e d by b o t h t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s and Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n s . U.S. C o n s t . , Amend. V I ; 1972 Mont. C o n s t . , a r t . 11, S24. The r i g h t t o a s p e e d y t r i a l i s fundam e n t a l , K l o p f e r v . N o r t h C a r o l i n a ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 386 U.S. 213, 223, 87 S . C t . 988, 993, 1 8 L.Ed.2d 1, 8 , and t h e f e d e r a l s t a n d a r d , as a minimum, i s imposed by t h e d u e p r o c e s s c l a u s e o f t h e Fourt e e n t h Amendment o n t h e s t a t e s . S e e Dickey v . F l o r i d a ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 398 U.S. 30, 90 S . C t . 1564, 26 L.Ed.2d 26; S m i t h v . Hooey ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 393 U . S . 374, 89 S . C t . 575, 21 L.Ed.2d 607. "The t o u c h s t o n e i n a n y a n a l y s i s of t h e s p e e d y t r i a l i s s u e i s B a r k e r v . Wingo ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S . C t . 2182, 2192, 33 L.Ed.2d 1 0 1 , 116-17, i n which t h e Supreme C o u r t s e t o u t a f o u r f a c t o r balancing approach w i t h t h e conduct o f b o t h p r o s e c u t i o n and d e f e n s e b e i n g weighed. The f o u r f a c t o r s t o b e c o n s i d e r e d a r e : " (1) Length o f d e l a y ; " ( 2 ) Reason f o r t h e d e l a y ; " ( 3 ) Defendant's a s s e r t i o n of t h e r i g h t ; and, " ( 4 ) Prejudice t o t h e defendant. "The C o u r t emphasized t h e n e c e s s i t y o f b a l a n c ing the factors: "'We r e g a r d none of t h e f o u r f a c t o r s i d e n t i f i e d a b o v e a s e i t h e r a n e c e s s a r y o r s u f f i c i e n t cond i t i o n t o t h e f i n d i n g of a d e p r i v a t i o n of t h e r i g h t of speedy t r i a l . Rather, they a r e r e l a t e d f a c t o r s and m u s t b e c o n s i d e r e d t o g e t h e r w i t h s u c h o t h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s a s may b e r e l e v a n t . In sum, t h e s e f a c t o r s h a v e no t a l i s m a n i c q u a l i t i e s ; c o u r t s must s t i l l e n g a g e i n a d i f f i c u l t and s e n s i t i v e balancing process.' 407 U.S. a t 533, 92 S . C t . a t 2193, 33 L.Ed.2d a t 118. " T h i s C o u r t h a s a d o p t e d and a p p l i e d t h e f o u r f a c t o r b a l a n c i n g t e s t o f B a r k e r i n a s e r i e s of dec i s i o n s d a t i n g back t o 1973. S e e S t a t e v . C o l l i n s (1978) I - Mont. , 582 P.2d 1179, 35 St.Rep. 993; S t a t e v . C a s s i d y ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont. I 578 P.2d 735, 737, 35 St.Rep. 612; S t a t e e x r e l . B r i c e n o v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 7 7 ) , - Mont. -, 568 P.2d 1 6 2 , 1 6 4 , 34 St.Rep. 927; S t a t e v . Keller ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 372, 377, 553 P.2d 1 0 1 3 , 1016; S t a t e ex rel. Sanford v. District Court (1976), 1 7 0 Mont. 1 9 6 , 1 9 9 , 551 P.2d 1005, 1007; S t a t e v . S t e w a r d ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 8 ?40nt. 385, 389, 543 P.2d 1 7 8 , 181; F i t z p a t r i c k v . C r i s t ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 6 5 Mont. 382, 388, 528 P.2d 1 3 2 2 , 1325; S t a t e v . S a n d e r s ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 3 Mont. 209, 213, 516 P.2d 372, 375. W e r e a f f i r m o u r s u p p o r t of t h i s t e s t a s t h e c o r r e c t and m o s t c o m p l e t e s t a n d a r d a v a i l a b l e t o j u d g e speedy t r i a l q u e s t i o n s . " The C o u r t i n Tiedemann t h e n went on t o d i s c u s s t h e f i r s t f a c t o r , length of delay: L e n g t h of d e l a y h a s b e e n re"Length of d e l a y . f e r r e d t o a s t h e t r i g g e r s e t t i n g o f f t h e speedy t r i a l issue inquiry: " ' T h e l e n g t h of t h e d e l a y i s t o some e x t e n t a t r i g g e r i n g mechanism. U n t i l t h e r e i s some d e l a y which i s p r e s u m p t i v e l y p r e j u d i c i a l , t h e r e i s no n e c e s s i t y f o r i n q u i r y i n t o t h e o t h e r f a c t o r s t h a t go i n t o t h e b a l a n c e . N e v e r t h e l e s s , b e c a u s e of t h e i m p r e c i s i o n of t h e r i g h t t o s p e e d y t r i a l , t h e l e n g t h of d e l a y t h a t w i l l provoke such a n i n q u i r y i s n e c e s s a r i l y d e p e n d e n t upon t h e p e c u l i a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e c a s e . ' B a r k e r , 407 U.S. a t 530-31, 92 S . C t . a t 2192, 33 L.Ed.2d a t 117. "Accord, K e l l e r , 170 Mont. a t 377, 553 P.2d a t 1017; S t e w a r d , 168 Mont. a t 389, 543 P.2d a t 181." 584 P.2d a t 1287-88, 35 S t - R e p . a t 1707. I n the i n s t a n t case, the t i m e lapse is s u f f i c i e n t t o t r i g g e r a n i n q u i r y i n t o t h e o t h e r t h r e e f a c t o r s of t h e balancing test. The d e l a y (317 d a y s , t e n and o n e - h a l f months, from d a t e o f a r r e s t t o d a t e s e t f o r t r i a l ) i s l o n g e r t h a n o r comparable t o t h e d e l a y s found s u f f i c i e n t t o w a r r a n t d i s m i s s a l i n F i t z p a t r i c k (seven months), Cassidy ( e i g h t m o n t h s ) , S a n f o r d ( t e n m o n t h s ) , B r i c e n o ( t e n and o n e - h a l f m o n t h s ) , and Keller ( e l e v e n m o n t h s ) . "The l e n g t h o f d e l a y t h u s s h i f t s t h e burden t o t h e S t a t e of e x p l a i n i n g t h e reason f o r t h e d e l a y and showing a b s e n c e o f p r e j u d i c e t o d e f e n dant." Tiedemann, 584 P.2d a t 1288. S e e a l s o C a s s i d y , 578 P.2d a t 738; S a n f o r d , 170 Mont. a t 200, 551 P.2d a t 1007; and F i t z p a t r i c k , 1 6 5 Mont. a t 388, 528 P.2d a t 1326. for the Reason - - d e l a y . The p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t n e i t h e r d e f e n d a n t s n o r t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e was t h e c a u s e o f a n y g r e a t d e l a y i n t h i s case. They c o n t e n d t h a t t h e main r e a s o n f o r t h e d e l a y was crowded c o u r t d o c k e t s and i n a d e q u a t e calendaring procedures. W e agree. J u d g e Sande had j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c a s e a t two d i f f e r e n t t i m e s a s d i d J u d g e Luedke. Both J u d g e Wilson and J u d g e M a r t i n assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n o n c e . The main c a u s e o f t h e d e l a y w a s t h a t t h e c a s e s i m p l y s a t from t h e t i m e J u d g e W i l s o n assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n i n A p r i l 1978 u n t i l h e e x c u s e d h i m s e l f August 9, 1978. On August 1 6 , 1 9 7 8 , J u d g e Sande a g a i n assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n and was a g a i n s u b s t i t u t e d by defendant Puzio. J u d g e Luedke a g a i n assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n , a n d t h e m a t t e r was e v e n t u a l l y s e t f o r t r i a l on O c t o b e r 1 0 , The S t a t e a r g u e s i t p r o s e c u t e d t h e c a s e w i t h r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e and s h o u l d n o t b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r crowded c o u r t d o c k e t s a n d t h e method o f s c h e d u l i n g t r i a l s . agree. W e do n o t The c o u r t i n C a s s i d y f l a t l y h e l d t h a t t h i s p o s i t i o n of t h e S t a t e i s without m e r i t . 578 P.2d a t 738. The s i t u a - t i o n h e r e i s v e r y s i m i l a r t o t h a t found i n B r i c e n o i n t h a t t h e m a t t e r s i m p l y s a t on t h e c a l e n d a r from A p r i l 1978 u n t i l i t was e v e n t u a l l y s e t f o r t r i a l i n O c t o b e r 1978. I n United S t a t e s v . J o n e s (D.C. Cir. 1 9 7 5 ) , 524 F.2d 834, 849, t h e C o u r t s t a t e d : ". . . The Supreme C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t d e l a y s d u e t o t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e s y s t e m a l s o must b e p l a c e d a t t h e Government's d o o r , s t a t i n g i n B a r k e r v . Wingo: " ' A d e f e n d a n t h a s no d u t y t o b r i n g h i m s e l f t o t r i a l ; the S t a t e has t h a t duty a s w e l l a s t h e d u t y of i n s u r i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l i s c o n s i s t e n t [ T l h e r u l e w e announce w i t h due p r o c e s s t o d a y , which c o m p o r t s w i t h c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e s , p l a c e s t h e p r i m a r y b u r d e n on t h e c o u r t s a n d t h e p r o s e c u t o r s t o a s s u r e t h a t cases a r e brought t o trial. '" ... W f i n d t h a t d e l a y s i n h e r e n t i n t h e system a r e n o t e chargeable t o defendants but rather t o t h e State. The t y p e o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l d e l a y s w e have h e r e i n e n u m e r a t e d , where a c a s e i s allowed t o merely s i t awaiting t r i a l , cannot be overlooked, absent counterbalancing f a c t o r s . Defendants' a s s e r t i o n of r i g h t s . W e f i n d t h a t defen- d a n t s a s s e r t e d t h e i r r i g h t s properly under t h e g u i d e l i n e s s e t f o r t h by t h i s C o u r t i n S t a t e v . S t e w a r d ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168 Mont. 385, 543 P.2d 178. The f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t by t h i s C o u r t i n C a s s i d y i s d i s p o s i t i v e on t h i s f a c t o r : " 3 . D e f e n d a n t ' s A s s e r t i o n - -e R i g h t . of t h "The S t a t e a r g u e s , i n t h i s r e g a r d , t h a t d e f e n d a n t has f a i l e d t o expedite t h e proceedings i n t h i s c a s e t h r o u g h any a c t i v e p l e a d i n g s b e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , s u c h as by r e q u e s t i n g a n e a r l i e r t r i a l date. I n a d d i t i o n , it i s maintained t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s f o r d e n i a l of a s p e e d y t r i a l w a s u n t i m e l y , and s h o u l d have been made a t some p o i n t between e n t r y o f p l e a and t h e s e t t i n g of t h e t r i a l d a t e . The S t a t e d o e s n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y c o n t e n d , however, t h a t d e f e n d a n t i n some manner waived h i s r i g h t t o a s s e r t a d e n i a l of a speedy t r i a l . " I t i s , of course, t h e g e n e r a l r u l e under t h e an accused p r e s e n t s t a t e o f t h e law t h a t ' . must t a k e some a f f i r m a t i v e a c t i o n t o o b t a i n a t r i a l t o be e n t i t l e d t o a discharge f o r delay.' S t a t e v . S t e w a r d , 1 6 8 Mont. 390, 543 P.2d 182. Such b u r d e n i s s a t i s f i e d , however, by t h e maki n g o f a n a p p r o p r i a t e m o t i o n , d i s c u s s e d by t h i s Court i n Steward a s follows: .. "'The " a p p r o p r i a t e motion" i s a motion t o d i s m i s s The p r o p e r t i m e f o r d e n i a l of a speedy t r i a l . t o a s s e r t t h e r i g h t t o a speedy t r i a l i s p r i o r t o t h e a c t u a l commencement o f t h e t r i a l , u s u a l l y a t the t i m e t h e t r i a l date i s set, o r t h e t i m e the case is called t o t r i a l . ' 1 6 8 Xont. 390-91, 543 P.2d 1 8 2 . .. "Defendant's a s s e r t i o n of t h e r i g h t i n t h i s c a s e was i n a l l r e s p e c t s p r o p e r u n d e r t h e s t a n d a r d o u t l i n e d i n S t e w a r d , h a v i n g been made between t h e t i m e t h e m a t t e r w a s s e t f o r t r i a l and t h e 578 P.2d a t 739. t r i a l date itself ." to Prejudice - defendants. The f i n a l f a c t o r t o b e con- s i d e r e d i n t h e balancing process i s t h e q u e s t i o n of whether d e f e n d a n t s were p r e j u d i c e d by t h e d e l a y . This prejudice i s f u r t h e r d e f i n e d i n Barker: "Prejudice, of course, should be assessed i n l i g h t o f t h e i n t e r e s t s o f d e f e n d a n t s which t h e s p e e d y t r i a l r i g h t was d e s i g n e d t o p r o t e c t . This Court has i d e n t i f i e d t h r e e such i n t e r e s t s : ( i )t o p r e v e n t o p p r e s s i v e p r e t r i a l i n c a r c e r a t i o n ; (ii) t o m i n i m i z e a n x i e t y and c o n c e r n of t h e a c c u s e d ; a n d ( i i i )t o l i m i t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e defense w i l l be impaired." 407 U.S. a t 532, 92 S . C t . a t 2193, 33 L Ed 2d a t 118. with regard t o oppressive p r e t r i a l incarceration, d e f e n d a n t P u z i o h a s been i n c a r c e r a t e d s i n c e t h e d a y o f h i s arrest. trial. D e f e n d a n t A l l e n was n o t i n c a r c e r a t e d p r i o r t o P u z i o w a s d e t a i n e d i n t h e Y e l l o w s t o n e County j a i l away from h i s f a m i l y a n d f r i e n d s d u r i n g t h e e n t i r e C h r i s t m a s and New Year's holidays. Then h e was g i v e n a p a r o l e r e v o c a - t i o n and was removed from t h e c o u n t y j a i l t o t h e s t a t e prison. H e was t h e n r e t u r n e d t o Y e l l o w s t o n e County by t h e s h e r i f f f o r e a c h o f h i s c o u r t a p p e a r a n c e s and r e t u r n e d t o the prison. The s e c o n d i t e m t o b e c o n s i d e r e d i s t h e a n x i e t y and concern of t h e accused. Here, t h e d e l a y o f 317 d a y s , a l o n g w i t h P u z i o ' s removal from B i l l i n g s a c r o s s t h e s t a t e t o Deer Lodge, and t h e i n a b i l i t y t o communicate by t e l e p h o n e were r e a s o n s f o r P u z i o t o have a g r e a t d e a l o f c o n c e r n a b o u t t h e p r o g r e s s i n h i s c a s e , and a g r e a t d e a l o f c o n c e r n a b o u t t h e p r e p a r a t i o n of h i s defense. The l a s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n u n d e r p r e j u d i c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s i s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e defense w i l l be impaired. Barker s t a t e s t h a t t h i s concern i s t h e most s e r i o u s because t h e i n a b i l i t y o f a d e f e n d a n t a d e q u a t e l y t o p r e p a r e h i s case skews t h e f a i r n e s s o f t h e e n t i r e s y s t e m . The c o u r t i n B a r k e r commented o n t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s d y i n g , w i t n e s s e s unable t o recall a c c u r a t e l y e v e n t s of t h e d i s t a n t p a s t , and l o s s o f memory. These i t e m s a r e a l w a y s a problem b e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d d o e s n o t a l w a y s r e f l e c t what h a s been f o r g o t t e n . In this p a r t i c u l a r c a s e , P u z i o h a s been i n c a r c e r a t e d i n t h e s t a t e p r i s o n , a g r e a t d i s t a n c e from h i s d e f e n s e c o u n s e l a n d t h e scene of t h e crime. H e h a s n o t been a b l e t o a s s i s t i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f h i s d e f e n s e e x c e p t by l e t t e r . Further, with r e g a r d t o memory, t h e S t a t e i s t h e o n l y b e n e f a c t o r s i n c e i t s policy usually requires witnesses t o type t h e i r statements a n d s c e n a r i o s o f a c t i v i t y which a r e u s e d t o r e f r e s h t h e i r recollection. However, l a y w i t n e s s e s c a l l e d by t h e d e f e n - d a n t s r a r e l y have t h e i r p a s t r e c o l l e c t i o n s r e f r e s h e d by s t a t e m e n t s and s c e n a r i o s p r e p a r e d by them a t t h e t i m e t h e e v e n t s o c c u r r e d , which, i n t h i s c a s e , was November 28, 1977--two days a f t e r Thanksgiving. W e f i n d t h e f a c t t h a t P u z i o h a s been i n c a r c e r a t e d t h e e n t i r e t i m e s i n c e h i s a r r e s t on November 28, 1977, demons t r a t e s a f f i r m a t i v e p r e j u d i c e a g a i n s t him. W e r e e m p h a s i z e t h a t w e a r e engaged i n a d e l i c a t e b a l - ancing process. The p r e s e n c e of p r e j u d i c e i n t h i s case s h o u l d b e weighed h e a v i l y i n t h e b a l a n c i n g o f a l l f a c t o r s . On b a l a n c e , w e f i n d t h e r e h a s been e x c e s s i v e d e l a y i n b r i n g i n g t h i s case t o t r i a l ; t h e S t a t e h a s f a i l e d t o e x p l a i n s a t i s f a c t o r i l y t h e reasons f o r t h e delay; t h e defendants p r o p e r l y and t i m e l y a s s e r t e d t h e i r r i g h t t o a s p e e d y t r i a l ; a n d , p r e j u d i c e t o d e f e n d a n t P u z i o h a s r e s u l t e d by r e a s o n o f t h e delay. W e b e l i e v e t h e comments of now C h i e f J u s t i c e H a s w e l l i n Keller, a s s e t f o r t h i n Tiedemann a g a i n b e a r r e p e a t i n g : " T h i s C o u r t , a s w e l l a s many o t h e r c o u r t s , h a s o f t e n s t a t e d t h a t s o c i e t y a t l a r g e , as w e l l a s t h e individual defendant, has a s t a k e i n t h e speedy d i s p o s i t i o n of c r i m i n a l m a t t e r s . E.g., B a r k e r , 407 U.S. a t 519-21, 92 S . C t . a t 2186-87, I n view o f t h e r e s u l t i n 33 L.Ed.2d a t 110-11. t h i s c a s e , t h e comments of now C h i e f J u s t i c e Haswell i n K e l l e r b e a r r e p e a t i n g : . . .Delayed c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e p r o c e e d i n g s a r e undermining p u b l i c confidence i n t h e system i t s e l f . J u s t i c e d e l a y e d may n o t o n l y be j u s t i c e denied b u t j u s t i c e brought s e r i o u s l y under question. The backbone o f law e n f o r c e m e n t and t h e The c o u r t s j u s t i c e system i s p u b l i c s u p p o r t . m u s t n o t p e r m i t t h e e r o s i o n o f t h a t s u p p o r t by p e r m i t t i n g u n n e c e s s a r y d e l a y between c h a r g e and " Tiedemann, 584 conviction o r release.' P. 2d a t 1292-93. 11 1 ... W e s t a t e d f u r t h e r i n Tiedemann: "While w e w i l l n o t t o l e r a t e undue d e l a y i n t h e prosecution of an i n d i v i d u a l defendant, n e i t h e r w i l l s o c i e t y long t o l e r a t e d i s m i s s a l of c r i m i n a l charges f o r l a c k of speedy t r i a l . Prosecutors a n d c o u r t s m u s t work t o a v o i d t h e k i n d o f r e s u l t w e r e a c h today." 584 P.2d a t 1293. W e recommend t h a t t h e j u d g e s o f t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t of t h e S t a t e o f Montana would do w e l l t o c o o p e r a t e t o t h e extent t h a t t h e s i t u a t i o n t h a t occurred i n t h i s case i s not repeated. The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s m i s s i n g t h e charges f o r l a c k o f a speedy t r i a l i s a f f i r m e d . W e concur: %ad??$.r u spi c A w d ! Chief t e - 4J-s t i c e s /I u

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.