The right to a speedy trial is necessary to ensure the effective resolution of criminal cases.

A
speedy trial ensures the interests of various stakeholders are taken care of. The suspect has the
right to a speedy trial. This ensures that there is a minimum interruption of their life. The Sixth
Amendment to the Constitution establishes the right to a speedy trial. There is no specific
measurement of what is speedy. Statutes establishing speedy trial regulations provide guidelines
on determining the time within which a trial should be commenced. Such statutes also establish
the consequences in case an accused individual is denied the right to a speedy trial. For instance,
there is a limited time period within which an arrested suspect should be arraigned in a court.
Further, it is in the interests of the public and the victims that the trial is speedy. There is
always anxiety during a trial as various parties await resolution of the case. Such uncertainity and
anxiety is true for both the suspect and the victims. Furthermore, a speedy trial increases the
probability that the case will be based on facts. Witnesses’ memory is best as close to the
incident as possible. Similarly, evidence is likely to deteriorate with time affecting its usefulness
in the case.
There is no absolute definition of ‘speedy’. As such, state and federal governments apply
varying tests to determine whether the trial is speedy or not. Often the test involves several
components. The first is the length of the delay and the reason for the delay. This establishes
whether the delay was reasonable or avoidable. For instance, during the coronavirus epidemic, if
the delay is caused by the court acquiring new technology to allow remote hearings, the delay
may be reasonable under the circumstances. The second component is whether the defendant
asserted their right to a speedy trial. If the defendant is indifferent regarding the speed of the
trial, the criminal justice system may apply bare minimum standards for speed of trial. Another
issue examined is whether the delay compromised the defense. The right to a speedy trial tests
are applied after an arrest or the formal filing of charges. A defendant may waive the right to a
speedy trial if they believe it will help built a better defense through finding more favorable
evidence or witnesses. The defendant may also waive if they want to increase time for
negotiating a plea for a lesser offence.
In Barker v. Wingo, the ruling offered insight on the significance of a speedy trial. Barker
and Manning were arrested as the suspects in the death of an elderly couple who were murdered
by intruders on 20th July 1958. The two suspects were indicted on 15th September and assigned
counsel on 17th September. The court had set the trial date for 21st September. However, the court
felt that it was necessary to try Manning first since his testimony would be useful in convicting
Barker. Manning was tried several times before being convicted in 1962. Barker was set to be
tried on 19th March 1963 but several continuances postponed this date to 9th October same year.
He was convicted at this trial. Barker claimed his right to a speedy trial had been violated in
district court. The court denied granting him habeas corpus relief on this matter. The Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling by the district court.
This case raised the question regarding whether the right to a speedy trial can be implicitly
waived. The Court of Appeals rendered a unanimous verdict that the right to a speedy trial can be
implicitly waived. The court argued that the right to a speedy trial has several stakeholders to
account for including the justice system as well as society. The interests of society and the justice
system have to be balanced with the interests of the accused. Given there is no express way to
determine what is and is not a speedy trial, the courts consider the specific circumstances
surrounding each case. The court pointed out that Barker failed to contest the numerous
continuances which resulted in the delay. Barker had the opportunity to assert their right to a
speedy trial by contesting these continuances. Therefore, although the delay was long, there was
no prejudice Barker faced.
This case is important as it established the balancing tests applied for determining whether
an accused’s right to a speedy trial has been violated. The case highlighted the need to protect
individuals accused of a crime from infringement on their liberty. The justice system’s limited
resources or large volumes of cases could not infringe on this right. However, the court often
considers the accused’s assertiveness regarding wanting a speedy trial.