70 A.3d 1027
Vt.2013Background
- Arraignment on felony charges September 3, 2008; public defender appointed, Willey was initially assigned.
- Defendant sought a speedy trial and discovery progressed with depositions and witnesses.
- Discovery schedule set with readiness by June 1, 2009; multiple depositions conducted; State sought continuances.
- Unsigned pro se speedy-trial motion filed September 9, 2009, signed October 6, 2009; Willey withdrew and new counsel appointed October 20, 2009.
- Two-day hearing on dismissal motions in February 2010; defendant testified dissatisfaction with prior counsel.
- March 2010 trial produced a hung jury; speedy-trial ruling denied March 22, 2010; conviction on unlawful restraint stands on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the delay from arraignment to trial violated the right to speedy trial | Turner | Turner | No speedy-trial violation |
| Whether the Barker four-factor test supports relief given delay and prejudice | State | Turner | No reversible prejudice |
| Role of defense delay and change of counsel in causation of delay | State | Turner | Delay not attributable to State; factors weigh against relief |
| Whether defendant’s assertion of the speedy-trial right was sufficiently aggressive | State | Turner | Not aggressive; factor against relief |
| Whether prejudice was shown to warrant dismissal | State | Turner | Prejudice not shown; no dismissal warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (prescribed four-factor framework; delay depends on case circumstances)
- State v. Vargas, 185 Vt. 629 (2009) (establishes Barker factors and presumptively prejudicial delay analysis in Vermont)
- Brillon v. United States, 556 U.S. 81 (2009) (addressed speedy-trial timing and threshold delay inquiry)
- United States v. Doggett, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (furtive delay analysis; threshold delay inquiry reaffirmed)
- State v. Unwin, 139 Vt. 186 (1980) (delay thresholds and speedy-trial rights in Vermont context)
- United States v. Chahia, 544 F.3d 890 (8th Cir. 2008) (presumptively prejudicial delay standard in federal circuit)