For purposes of a state constitutional speedy trial analysis, no presumption of prejudice arises from the delay after the filing of the complaint and before an arrest or formal accusation by indictment or information; rather, the defendant seeking dismissal must affirmatively demonstrate prejudice. However, when the issue of a violation of a statutory time limit arises before trial, prejudice will be presumed unless the prosecution successfully meets its burden of showing good cause for delay. Similarly, because statutes of limitation reflect a legislative construction of the speedy trial guarantee, courts may appropriately conclude that delays between the filing of a complaint and the arrest of a defendant which exceed the period of limitation applicable to the charged offense are unreasonable and thus presumptively prejudicial. Thus, delays that are uncommonly long may trigger a presumption of prejudice.
It is of utmost importance the attorney working on a matter examines the necessary time periods of arrest, filing, and indictment. At Earl Carter and Associates, we work all the angles to either receive the best deal possible or have the case dismissed. In one of our cases, our client was finally brought in on a 10 year-old warrant. At the arraignment, an oral Serna motion was more than sufficient for the magistrate to dismiss the matter, a drug possession and sales case. It is even more important to note that if the matter of speedy trial is not raised, it is therefore waived. The professionals at Earl Carter and Associates handles business similar to this every day so you do not have to, and it has greatly benefited several of our clients.
