Prosecution’s Responsibility to Move the Case Forward
When the executive branch of government undertakes to prosecute criminal charges against an individual, the government takes upon itself certain responsibilities, burdens, and obligations that normally must be met through county attorney, district attorney, or city attorney prosecutors.
Some of these are imposed by the Constitution, some are created by the Legislature through statute, and some are required by rules promulgated by the Courts.
Dismissal for “Unreasonable” or “Unconstitutional” Delay
Rule 25 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure (URCP) provides that a judge “shall dismiss the information or indictment when… [t]here is unreasonable delay in bringing the defendant to trial.” Under our Constitution, the prosecution has the responsibility to “prosecute” the case — meaning, to move the case forward. Rule 25 uses the mandatory language of “shall dismiss” in this context.
“Within a Reasonable Time”
Rule 7 of the URCP requires that a preliminary examination in a felony or class A misdemeanor case “must be held within a reasonable time…” The rule further delineates the idea of “reasonable time” by requiring that the examination be held “not later than 14 days [after the hearing is requested] if the defendant is in custody for the offense charged….” The rule allows a 28-day window for holding the hearing “if the defendant is not in custody.” (Note that the rule is technically silent on the required time period if a defendant is in custody, but is not being held on the case at issue.)
Extended for Good Cause
Rule 7 provides that a court may extend the 14- or 28-day period for holding a preliminary examination “for good cause shown” — meaning that if a prosecutor can show a good reason for granting an extension (or continuance) then the court can allow the hearing to be held at a later date.
Defense attorneys can remind the court (and prosecutors as needed) that “good cause” must exist and must be shown before the court should grant an extension. A delay should not be automatically granted. Instead, the rule requires that the prosecution demonstrate “good cause” for an extension.
Subpoenaed to testify? Or just going bowling?
It is common for prosecutors to request a delay for reasons such as a police officer planning to be out of town, or the prosecutor having another hearing scheduled on a particular day. Unavailability is not automatic “good cause” without more. A delay requested because an officer is planning to go bowling with his high school friends should be viewed differently by the court than a delay requested because the police officer who is already under a conflicting court order to appear and provide testimony at a murder trial scheduled at the same time.
Simple scheduling convenience should not be viewed as “good cause” to delay proceedings in a case when a person is being held in jail on the matter.
The Constitution Matters Too
Statutes and procedural rules set out deadlines and other requirements for various actions or filings. But constitutional requirements take precedence, even if the rule or statute is very specific. Both procedural and substantive due process protections should be considered in addition to the speedy trial right.