That should be where the right to a speedy trial comes into play. If he is held in jail because he isn't released on bail, the best thing to do is repeatedly file motions for the speedy trial.
A speedy trial is much slower than you’d probably think. I can’t find specific guidelines for Tennessee beyond having the right to one. The federal guidelines are generally 30 days to make a specific charge, and 70 days from then to appear before a judge. That also doesn’t ensure the case goes to trial, just that you’ve had a hearing.
Ie you can spend over 3 months in jail before an hearing and still be considered to have had a speedy trial. He’d have to wait til after that period to even file a motion for dismissal on speedy trial grounds, and then wait for the hearing on that to happen.
This is part of why plea deals are so common. Even if he were somehow to be convicted, his sentence would probably be less than the speedy trial window. At a certain point, the prosecution will offer to bump it down to some kind of misdemeanor with jail time less than he’s already done so it’s time served. He may as well plead guilty to that because otherwise he’ll keep sitting in jail waiting on a trial and do more time for no reason.
There’s no realistic route where he gets compensated for being wrongly prosecuted, even if he goes to trial and is found not guilty.
The justice system is deeply, deeply flawed and unjust.
At the state level, if a defendant does not waive their right to a speedy trial, the time from being charged (arraignment) to trial is limited by law. It ranges from 30 days for misdemeanors to 6 months for felonies. .
In California, the clock for a misdemeanor is 30 days if a defendant is taken into custody, or 45 days if not in custody. For a felony, it's 60 days from arraignment. If the defendant remains in custody after arrest, arraignment must occur within 48 hours of arrest, or on the first business day after the 48-hour period expires if it ends on a weekend or court holiday. If the defendant is freed from custody prior to arraignment, then arraignment can occur at a later date.
In NY and most red states, the clock is approximately 6 months for felonies. Due to the longer clock, in many of these states the clock begins when the defendant is taken into custody (or the state has a shorter timeframe for trial for defendants in custody). Florida just changed its laws to make the clock start on arraignment, lengthened the time required for arraignment to 30 days for defendants in custody, and made the speedy trial right an affirmative right that the defendant must specifically assert. Unlike pretty much every other state, the clock also restarts if the prosecutor withdraws and re-files the same charges (in almost every other state, the clock is only started anew for new charges.) FL also made the consequences for violation of these rights a mere dismissal without prejudice. (TLDR: don't get arrested in Florida.)
Most defense lawyers will advise clients to waive their speedy trial rights. This is for the lawyer's benefit, not the client's. It allows the lawyer to preserve their negotiating relationship with the prosecutor for future clients. In California, due to the shortened time frames, 99% of the time it is advisable to assert speedy trial rights (especially in felonies, but even in misdemeanors) because the prosecution usually can't get its act together in time. Some forensics can't even be completed in the 60 day window. The defense win rate in proceedings where the defendant asserts their speedy trial rights is so high that prosecutors will always offer a sweetheart plea deal to avoid going to trial.
(Of course the obvious solution is for the prosecutors to just wait until they have an actual complete case before filing charges. But if they did that we wouldn't need speedy trial laws in the first place.)
I think if there's a major constitutional right to be invoked here, it's the Eighth Amendment "excessive bail shall not be required". Two million dollars?! For a 61-year-old posting on Facebook? What kind of risk does he pose exactly?
Regardless of bail, IMO you are almost always better off staying in jail if at all possible and forcing the state to a speedy trial.
I watched a close family member go through the process after getting out on bail. The charge was effectively a he-said she-said situation, at a time when that was going especially poorly for the he involved.
He bailed out and took his lawyer's advice to wait the state out. That turned into a 4 year delay for what was technically a misdemeanor charge with a 1-year max charge. The trial was a joke and they offered effectively no evidence beyond one testimony contradicted by another witness directly in the room at the time.
Who knows what would have happened in a speedy trial. If nothing else, a 1-year sentence would have been completed 3 years earlier than the trial he had even happened.
>Regardless of bail, IMO you are almost always better off staying in jail if at all possible and forcing the state to a speedy trial.
I'm guessing that you have the means to pay your bills for years before having to worry about losing your income and your home. Most folks don't.
If you're in jail, you can't work. If you don't go to work, you'll lose your job. If you lose your job and you're like most people in the US, within a few months, you can't pay your mortgage or rent, so you'll lose your home as well as any belongings in that home.
Which are the biggest reasons why high/no bail forces folks to accept plea deals. "Speedy Trial" laws generally don't even enter into it.
> I'm guessing that you have the means to pay your bills for years before having to worry about losing your income and your home. Most folks don't.
That's a pretty big assumption that also happens to be wrong. I specifically said "if at all possible" because I'm well aware that plenty of people can't put everything on hold for 30-60 days and have to potentially start over after that's done.
If someone can in any way afford it, though, I would always recommend that approach. As soon as one is embroiled in the legal system its terrible no matter what the end result is. Either way the outcome is bad, if you can expedite the process you are better off.
I don't know anyone except the retired, who can afford to put everything on hold for 30-60 days (which in most cases will mean losing one's job). A small number of us have the savings to do that.
Do you mean that literally? You know noone less than 30-60 days of bankruptcy or ruin?
The fact that many, if not most, people are that close is the problem. We shouldn't be days or weeks away from ruin, and should the time come that one has to stand for their rights into the court of law they should be able to afford that fight on the order of a month or two. How can we keep our government in check if we can't afford to fight it for more than a few weeks?
>That's a pretty big assumption that also happens to be wrong. I specifically said "if at all possible" because I'm well aware that plenty of people can't put everything on hold for 30-60 days and have to potentially start over after that's done.
Okay. I've been wrong before, am wrong with this and will certainly be wrong again. My apologies. As such, I hope you never end up in a position where you'll need to consider taking your own advice.
But that doesn't change the overall point -- that sitting in jail for weeks or months, perhaps even years pre-trial will likely destroy most folks' life and livelihood.
> But that doesn't change the overall point -- that sitting in jail for weeks or months, perhaps even years pre-trial will likely destroy most folks' life and livelihood.
Agreed, and no one should be okay with living in a system where its so common that weeks or even a few months is a person's breaking point.
Years is excessive, though in any jurisdiction I know of a person wouldn't be help pre-trial for years if they are demanding their speedy trial. I would like it to be commonplace for people to have cushion on the order of months, I wouldn't necessarily expect years of cushion.
