Lawyer Listings Add, Update, or Remove Listings

Right to a Speedy Trial

The constitutional guarantee that a criminal case be brought to trial without unreasonable delay, and the statutes in the federal system and most states that put a clock on it - what starts the clock, what stops it, why a defendant's own motions extend it, and the remedy of dismissal when it runs out.

Informational only - this is not legal advice. These definitions explain general legal vocabulary in plain English. They are not advice about your situation, reading them creates no attorney-client relationship, and the law differs from state to state and changes over time. For advice you can rely on, speak to a lawyer licensed in your state.

What it means

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused a speedy trial, and every state constitution has an equivalent. The constitutional right attaches when a person is arrested or formally charged, whichever comes first, and protects against oppressive pretrial incarceration, the anxiety of an unresolved accusation and the risk that the defence will be impaired as witnesses disappear and memories fade. Whether the right has been violated is decided by balancing the length of the delay, the reason for it, whether and when the defendant asserted the right, and the prejudice suffered; no fixed period is required, and delay caused by the defendant weighs against the claim. The only remedy for a constitutional violation is dismissal with prejudice - the charge cannot be refiled - which is why courts find one rarely.

Because the constitutional test is so open, the federal system and most states have enacted speedy-trial statutes or court rules that set specific periods: from arrest to indictment, and from the first appearance or arraignment to trial, each measured in days the statute fixes. These are the clocks that matter in practice. They stop, or "exclude" time, for the events the statute lists: pretrial motions from filing to decision, competency examinations, the absence or unavailability of the defendant or a witness, an interlocutory appeal, a continuance the judge grants on a finding that the ends of justice outweigh the interest in a speedy trial, and in many states any delay the defendant requested or agreed to. In a typical case the defence's own motions and continuances exclude more time than the prosecution's.

When a statutory clock runs out the charge must be dismissed, but the statute decides whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice, and the federal act directs the judge to weigh the seriousness of the offence, the circumstances of the dismissal and the effect on the administration of justice; a dismissal without prejudice lets the prosecution re-indict. A defendant held in custody in one jurisdiction on charges pending in another may invoke the Interstate Agreement on Detainers to require trial within a period it fixes. The right is waived by a plea of guilty and, in most jurisdictions, by failing to move for dismissal before trial.

Where this comes from

The constitutional balancing test is Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972); attachment on arrest or charge is United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971), and Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992), on prejudice presumed from extreme delay; Betterman v. Montana, 578 U.S. 437 (2016), holds the right does not extend to sentencing delay. The federal Speedy Trial Act is 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-3174, with the excludable periods at § 3161(h) (Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (2006), on ends-of-justice findings; Bloate v. United States, 559 U.S. 196 (2010)) and the dismissal remedy at § 3162. The Interstate Agreement on Detainers is codified at 18 U.S.C. App. 2 and in each party state. State speedy-trial rules are each state's own. No period in any of them is stated here.

When people hire a lawyer for this

A speedy-trial claim is built, not discovered: the lawyer keeps the calendar from the first appearance, objects on the record to prosecution continuances, and asserts the right in writing so that the "assertion" factor is on the defendant's side of the scale. A defendant sitting in custody who is told the delay is routine should ask the lawyer for the statutory clock computation and which days are excluded, and should understand that agreeing to a continuance for the defence's own convenience stops that clock.

Find a lawyer for this in your state

Choose your state. Each link opens the directory page for the city in that state with the most currently published law firms in this practice area; a +n beside the city is how many other cities in the state also have one. The list is generated when this page loads, so a state whose listings have lapsed drops out rather than becoming a dead link.

« All glossary terms

Part of the LawyerLand plain-English legal glossary. Definitions are written from primary sources - statutes and court rules - and each entry states the authority it rests on, or says plainly when the doctrine is state law with no national rule.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, civil legal aid programmes provide free help with many of these problems: civil legal aid programmes by state.

Related free reference tools: statute of limitations for a personal-injury claim, by state, quoted from each state's official text - part of LawyerLand's legal reference tools.