Keonna England
Charlotte School of Law
Comparative Law: Haiti and the United States
Summer 2016
Right to a Speedy Trial and the Lack Thereof
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The judicial systems of Haiti and the United States are vastly different in respect to the length of time that the accused can be detained without a trial. American citizens have a fundamental right to a speedy trial after they have been arrested and detained which is outlined in the Sixth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment states that the accused should be sentenced within a reasonable time in order to be fair to both the accused and society and to ascertain that justice is served. Haiti on the other hand, has no such right that is given to their citizens and the length of time …show more content…
Id at 517. Reasons for the prosecutorial stall was an attempt to convict defendant’s accomplice. Id at 515. Defendant’s counsel asserted two unsuccessful motions to dismiss on the grounds that the right to a speedy trial was not upheld by the court. Id. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and the defendant later appealed the trial court’s decision that his right to a speedy trial was violated. Id at 527. The appeal was also unsuccessful on the grounds that the length of time between defendant’s last objection and the veritable trail which was eight months was not excessively long. Id. Further, the defendant was able to assert his claim to the Supreme Court which was also to no avail. Id. The Supreme Court found that although the defendant’s conviction was sustained, the length of time from the initial arrest and the trial, five years, was “extraordinary” and that only seven months of the detention was reasonable. Id at 528. However, the Supreme Court noted that the defendant was not prejudiced by the delay in trial because his witnesses remained unharmed. Id. In addition to the Court finding that the defendant was not prejudiced, the Court also opined that the defendant did not genuinely want a speedy trial because he was counting on the acquittal of his accomplice in hopes that he would not be tried. Id. Therefore, the defendant’s conviction was upheld even though the Supreme Court acceded that the five-year detention of the defendant without having trial was
Charlotte School of Law
Comparative Law: Haiti and the United States
Summer 2016
Right to a Speedy Trial and the Lack Thereof
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The judicial systems of Haiti and the United States are vastly different in respect to the length of time that the accused can be detained without a trial. American citizens have a fundamental right to a speedy trial after they have been arrested and detained which is outlined in the Sixth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment states that the accused should be sentenced within a reasonable time in order to be fair to both the accused and society and to ascertain that justice is served. Haiti on the other hand, has no such right that is given to their citizens and the length of time …show more content…
Id at 517. Reasons for the prosecutorial stall was an attempt to convict defendant’s accomplice. Id at 515. Defendant’s counsel asserted two unsuccessful motions to dismiss on the grounds that the right to a speedy trial was not upheld by the court. Id. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and the defendant later appealed the trial court’s decision that his right to a speedy trial was violated. Id at 527. The appeal was also unsuccessful on the grounds that the length of time between defendant’s last objection and the veritable trail which was eight months was not excessively long. Id. Further, the defendant was able to assert his claim to the Supreme Court which was also to no avail. Id. The Supreme Court found that although the defendant’s conviction was sustained, the length of time from the initial arrest and the trial, five years, was “extraordinary” and that only seven months of the detention was reasonable. Id at 528. However, the Supreme Court noted that the defendant was not prejudiced by the delay in trial because his witnesses remained unharmed. Id. In addition to the Court finding that the defendant was not prejudiced, the Court also opined that the defendant did not genuinely want a speedy trial because he was counting on the acquittal of his accomplice in hopes that he would not be tried. Id. Therefore, the defendant’s conviction was upheld even though the Supreme Court acceded that the five-year detention of the defendant without having trial was