網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

As a result, not only are the rights of defendants brought into serious jeopardy, but, moreover, the deterrent effects of the criminal justice system in our communities are reduced.

From my own experience as a former prosecutor in my home state of Florida, I can confirm that court delays in trying criminal cases are most disturbing. I have seen, for example, defendants charged with both misdemeanors and felonies languishing in jails simply because of crowded court calendars. I have seen defendants plead guilty to lesser offenses partly because of large case loads and delays. Even worse, many of these same defendants, once sentenced, had served more time in jail awaiting trial than the sentence itself.

This kind of disregard for speedy trial creates over-crowded jails, as well as opportunities for some defendants who are on bail to commit even more crime. Recent studies indicate that in many Federal courts, the delay between arrest and trial runs between 10 and 12 months.

And the situation does not seem to be improving in either the federal or state court systems.

The legislation which I have sponsored is a strong incentive for the courts, together with the legal profession, to breathe new life into the speedy trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment by requiring the trials of a defendant charged with a Federal offense be commenced within sixty days of arrest.

To encourage speedy trials in state courts, this legislation also provides for an extension of aid from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration to states who adopt the sixty day rule.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, I commend the Committee for its interest in speedy trial legislation. The recent passage of S. 754 by the Senate is encouraging and a step in the right direction. I hope that you agree with me that the best incentive for re-vitalizing the speedy trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment is national legislation designed to bring an end to the current delays and red tape in our courts.

STATEMENT BY HON. ABNER J. MIKVA, A FORMER REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is a privilege to be able to discuss with you the proposed legislation on speedy trials.

As you may recall, in 1969 and 1970 when I was a member of Congress and served on the House Judiciary Committee, I sponsored several bills for speedy trials.

The Pretrial Crime Reduction Act, H.R. 15888 (91st Congress), which the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee and I cosponsored, was offered as an alternative to preventive detention, and it was intended to provide a more constructive way of dealing with crimes committed between arrest and trial. Unfortunately, the political and emotional mood of Congress was more responsive to placebos like preventive detention than to the more substantive concept of speedy trial. However, since that time we have witnessed the failure of preventive detention, both as a public relations stunt and as a tool for reducing crime. Since that time we have witnessed, as the Chairman recently stated, "an unprecedented public lack of confidence in our law enforcement and criminal justice institutions." And since that time we have not only witnessed, but too often been the real victims of, the destructive and demoralizing consequences of spiraling crime. 'If we have learned anything during the past several years, it must be that there is no escape for anyone from the consequences of crime. There are no sanctuaries. Families who sought to escape from the threat of crime by moving to the suburbs are discovering that the threat has not stayed in the cities.

Faced with the critical problem of crime in America, perhaps we now have sufficient motivation, tempered by the experience of our past mistakes, to strengthen our law enforcement and criminal justice institutions. Certainly one step in that direction would be an assurance of fair, speedy trials throughout the federal court system.

Speedy trials are guaranteed by the Constitution-and with good reason. Speedy trials are fair and efficient trials. They help reduce crime in general, and pretrial crime in particular. They avoid wasting money on the incarceration of innocent people. And they are certainly more convenient and just to the accused-considered innocent until proven guilty.

Speedy trials would give the public much more respect for the effectiveness of the courts. If criminals knew that the courts meant business--that justice would

be dispensed swiftly and without unnecessary delay-criminals would be more likely to be deterred from committing crimes. Under the present system, they can count on prolonging a trial for years, hoping that witnesses may become unavailable or forgetful.

Speedy trials also would have a very significant impact on reducing the amount of crime committed by people already accused of a crime and awaiting trial. According to studies by the National Bureau of Standards and Howard University, most serious crime committed during pretrial release occur after the first 60 days following arrest. A speedy trial would resolve a case before the second crime

occurs.

Since a recent LEA'A national jail survey showed that more than half the total jail population consists of people awaiting trial, speedy trials would prevent continued waste of money on a system that "punishes" people who are supposed to be presumed innocent by keeping them in jail. Even those people awaiting trial who are eventually found guilty gain nothing by sitting in an overcrowded college for crime. Both the guilty person and the society to which he returns are better off if there is a swift conviction and sentence to a program or institution for rehabilitation.

One of the most destructive effects of the present plague of trial delaysespecially those where the accused is held in custody awaiting trial-is the lost opportunity to begin providing the defendant with needed rehabilitative services. Eventually, nearly all criminal defendants will be returned to society. What society can do with them while they are in custody will in large measure determine whether or not they will represent a threat to society upon their release.

In addition, one of the great benefits of speedy trials would be an end to the horrible injustice of innocent people, unable to afford bail, copping a plea of guilty to spend less time in jail than they would be fighting to prove their innocence in court.

The legislation I introduced some years ago called for indictment within 60 days after the arrest and a trial within 120 days. This is impossible to implement immediately because of the vast backlog of cases already crushing the courts. But I do think such a plan could be phased into existence along the stages suggested in other plans already submitted to the committee. We must remember, however, that whatever final form speedy trial legislation takes, it is essential that there be strong sanctions for any unexcused trial delays. If the delay is caused by the defendant or his attorney, the sanction should be criminal contempt. If the delay is by the prosecution, the result should be dismissal of the case. A review panel should be available to determine who was responsible for delay.

These sanctions are necessary because the failure to develop a criminal justice system capable of trying cases within a short period after arrest has had serious social consequences. Respect for the swift certainty of punishment for criminal behavior has been undercut, and this in turn has undermined the deterrence of the law. Pretrial crime has been encouraged because our courts do not promptly identify criminals who may commit further crimes. And finally, the costs become staggering in financial terms.

Over half of this country's expenditures on corrections are diverted from rehabilitation of convicted offenders to custodial and supervisory care of the accused awaiting trial and many of them are ultimately proven innocent. Mr. Chairman, our system of criminal justice is on trial today. It is accused of being unfair, inefficient and inhumane. If the system itself could get a speedy trial, which would be rather unusual in this country, I fear it would be quickly convicted as an abysmal failure.

OFFICE OF THE STATE APPELLATE DEFENDER,

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT Chicago, Ill., September 18, 1974.

Mr. TIMOTHY HART,
Staff Counsel, Subcommittee on Crime, B-351-B, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. HART: Pursuant to our phone conversation of September 17, 1974, I am enclosing a copy of the comments on the Speedy Trial Act drafted by Patrick Hughes and myself. The additional 49 copies are being sent under separate cover.

As I mentioned on the phone, Marshall Hartman, Director of Defender Services for the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, asked that Pat and I review the bill and submit our comments to your committee.

If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Kindly convey our appreciation to the committee for the opportunity to express our views.

Sincerely,

PAUL BRADLEY, First Deputy Defender.

COMMENTS ON THE "SPEEDY TRIAL ACT OF 1974"

(By: Paul Bradley, First Deputy Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender and Patrick J. Hughes, Jr., Director, Prison Legal Services Project, Officer of the State Appellate Defender (Mr. Hughes is a former U.S. Attorney and for five years was a defense lawyer on the panel of the Federal Defender.))

The proposed "Speedy Trial Act" lacks any real substance in that it will not insure that a defendant will be tried within sixty days. The bulk of the act deals with its own implementation, and an enumeration of sanctions which are already inherent to the judiciary. However, at no point does the act implement the defendant's right to a speedy trial by barring prosecution of cases in which the government has delayed the case for more than 60 days.

If the Congress is serious about insuring the right to a speedy trial the act should simply state that a defendant who is ready for trial must be tried within sixty days of arrest or the case will be dismissed and prosecution forever barred. A provision for a reasonable extension upon showing by the government that evidence or witnesses are legally unavailable could be included.

Continuances by a defendant should only be allowed by motion stating cause and should be left to sound judicial discretion.

The entire act should be redrafted along these lines. If the proposed act is to be passed, changes in the following sections should be considered.

§ 3161 (h) (1) (iv) does not mandate release of defendant from custody or the obligations of bond during an interlocutory appeal by the government. Such a provision is a necessity.

§ 3162 (b) is too vague to provide any real sanction for delay by the prosecution. [This criticism also applies to the exception under § 3161 (e).]

§ 3162 (c) in essence makes the 60 day rule enforceable only against the defendant for the first 2 years in that the charge can be reinstituted by the government without even the requirement of the questionable "exceptional circumstances" test.

§ 3162(d) is unnecessary since all of these sanctions are already available to the judiciary. Congress should simply insert language encouraging the courts to exercise such power. In order to impose the sanctions set out in the bill it would probably be necessary to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine if the attorney was guilty of the conduct which is grounds for the sanctions. Orders imposing such sanctions would obviously be appealable. In other words, section (d) has the potential of creating a substantial amount of collateral litigation. These matters should be left to judicial discretion.

§ 3164 (a) (2) calls for an improper expression of opinion by the prosecutor which may prejudice defendant's right to a fair trial.

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA,

Washington, D.C., September 24, 1974.

Hon. JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Chairman, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CONYERS: As Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Associa tion of America, I am taking this opportunity to express our views briefly on S. 754, the Speedy Trial Act of 1974. NRA is the largest and oldest national sportsmen's organization in the United States with over one million members. One of the many objects and purposes listed in our bylaws is to promote law and order in the United States. Accordingly, we are interested in all types of legislation designed to modernize and improve the criminal justice system in our nation. S. 754 is, in our estimation, such a bill, in tune with the basic principles of

our organization and worthy of favorable consideration by you and your colleagues.

The two main concepts embodied in S. 754 have been discussed in depth by legal and judicial experts from across the country. NRA joins these learned spokesmen for the legal profession in supporting these concepts to affect a long overdue change in the criminal trial procedure in our nation.

First, S. 754 would establish a comprehensive planning process for trying criminal cases to which our criminal trial procedure must adhere. This process would also diminish injustice by assuring all citizens their Constitutional right to a speedy trial.

Second, and most important in our opinion, S. 754 would authorize pilot projects to facilitate pretrial release and, when necessary, provide pretrial supervision of high-risk persons released pending trial. This supervisory system, coupled with the reality of speedy trial, will decrease the likelihood of a law breaker from committing a second crime while awaiting trial for the first offense.

NRA views these two concepts as steps which will establish a more effective criminal justice system and which will automatically establish a more effective crime control system. This highly desirable goal is shared by all responsible persons and organizations. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, NRA urges you and your colleagues to report favorably S. 754, and guide its passage through the Congress so that the American public will have concrete proof that its concern over law and order has been realized and manifested in appropriate legislation. If NRA may be of further assistance in this matter, please let me know. Sincerely,

Congressman JOHN CONYERS, Jr.,

MAXWELL E. RICH,
Major General (Ret.),
Executive Vice President.

SAINT JOSEPH'S PROVINCIAL HOUSE,
Latham, N.Y., October 27, 1974.

Chairman of House Crime Subcommittee,
U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN CONYERS: May I urge you in accord with the Gospel: "I was in prison and you visited me" to move that bill on a "speedy" trial out onto the floor in November.

Accused persons have often spent lengthy periods of time awaiting trial in jail because of the nature of the crime, then been found not guilty. Yet they have been "punished" as though guilty.

The poor often remain in jail awaiting trial because they cannot post bail. The effects such as loss of employment or disruption of it, human indignity, criminalization while staying in jail, etc., tax money wasted, demand an urgent response.

Thank you for your cooperation in the bettering of conditions for prisoners as far as you can.

Prayers that you may effect this change for good.

Sincerely,

Sister SUSAN MARIE O'CONNOR, C.S.J.

TROY, N.Y., October 30, 1974.

Congressman JOHN CONYERS, Jr.,

Chairman of House Crime Subcommittee,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

HON. JOHN CONYERS: One of the Constitutional guarantees in the U.S. Bill of Rights states that a fair, public, and "speedy" trial is a right of every American. As a volunteer worker in th Albany County Jail, in New York, I have observed that this right is very often neglected. In addition, for the poor who cannot afford bail and who suffer most by losing their jobs-this is an additional and unnecessary burden.

Therefore, I would urge that the "speedy trial bill" be moved to the floor for favorable consideration, as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Sister HELEN MELE, C. & J.

ST. JOSEPH PROVINCIAL HOUSE,
Latham, N.Y., October 29, 1974.

Congressman JOHN CONYERS, Jr.,
Rayburn House Office Building,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN CONYERS: Recently I learned of a piece of legislation concerning the 6th amendment constitutional rights of the accused, which is under consideration in the House Judiciary Committee.

From my information, I believe it is known as the "speedy trials" bill.

I have been very disturbed lately by reports, TV documentaries and statistical fact finding research that present overwhelming evidence that the theory of justice that we basically believe underlies our criminal justice system, that a person is "innocent until proven guilty" has been eroded and almost inoperative in case where accuseds are kept in punitive confinement prior to trial.

This erosion of constitutional justice seems particularly visible in the cases of the poor and indigent who cannot raise bail for specific crimes they are being accused of, often lose their jobs and suffer grievous hardship and indignity because of their socioeconomic birthright.

Particularly appalling is the effect on the young, thrown amidst the most diverse and deviant of criminal recidivists, murderers, rapists, and maladjusted. While I do not want to diminish a sense of social and civic responsibility to all those imprisoned, this bill should begin to hasten the incarceration of accused persons amidst a highly negative and undesirable environment to shorter periods of time, by mandating sufficient incentive for court reform (such as a 90 day period) that guarantees the 6th amendment become a reality.

I ask that you do all possible as chairman of the subcommittee on Crime to hasten this bill for floor consideration before the termination of this Congressional session. I fear that without such action, the process initiating this bill anew for consideration in a new Congress is too high a price for the poor and voiceless oppressed to have to suffer.

Please alert me to any information concerning this bill as well as perhaps any report on the substance of the bill you think might be of interest to me. I thank you for your kindness.

Sincerely,

ALETHEA CONNOLLY, CSJ,
Provincial Administrator;
Social Action Education.

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS,
Washington, D.C., October 1, 1974.

JOHN CONYERS, JR.,

Chairman, U.S. House of Representatives,
House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime,
Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate your kind letter regarding my testimony before your Subcommittee on the Speedy Trial Act. The position of the Judicial Conference of the United States with respect to the desirability of this legislation is set forth in our letter to you of September 21, 1974, and our letter to then Chairman Celler on November 18, 1971.

However, members of my staff have prepared proposed amendments to Title I of the Act, which relate to matters of administration, and these are enclosed. These amendments have been transmitted also to Mr. Gekas of the Subcommittee staff. If the Act is to become law, we believe these amendments are essential for proper administration. In preparing these amendments my staff tried to adhere to the basic structure of the Act, so as not to disturb its integrity. We have not been asked to suggest any changes in the time schedules set out in Title I, and we have not done so. The Judiciary continues to be opposed in principle to statu

« 上一頁繼續 »