Vermont vs. Brillon In July 2001, Michael Brillon was arrested for striking his girlfriend in Bennington County, Vermont. Brillon was appointed a public defender, Richard Ammons. Ammons was eventually fired by Brillon. In total Brillon went through six public defenders before his trial in June, 2004. Brillon was convicted and sentenced to twelve to twenty years in prison. Brillon appealed his case to the Vermont Supreme Court which found that Brillon’s right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment. However, the case was not finalized yet as the Supreme Court would hear the case. On March 9t, 2009, the Supreme Court issued a ruling on Vermont vs. Brillon. A majority opinion was authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The majority found that Brillon’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated. The Court took into account Barker vs. Wingo which declared that the right to a speedy trail relied on both the actions of both the prosecution and defense. The Supreme Court found that Brillon had hindered his right to a speedy trial due to his rapid firing of his appointed attorneys
…show more content…
The investigation led them to Genovevo Salinas who agreed to accompany the officers to the police station for questioning. Salinas was not under arrest or read his Miranda rights during this time. Salinas answered all questions except one on the shotgun shells at the crime scene matching his gun. Salinas became quiet. Eventually, a ballistics analyst matched Salinas’ gun with the shells from the scene. However, Salinas went on the run and was not recaptured for another 15 years. At his trial the prosecution attempted to introduce Salinas’ silence as evidence. Salinas objected on Fifth Amendment grounds of self-incrimination. The trial court admitted the evidence and Salinas was found guilty of the homicides. The decision was affirmed by The Fourteenth Court of Appeals and The Court of Criminal Appeals of
The investigation led them to Genovevo Salinas who agreed to accompany the officers to the police station for questioning. Salinas was not under arrest or read his Miranda rights during this time. Salinas answered all questions except one on the shotgun shells at the crime scene matching his gun. Salinas became quiet. Eventually, a ballistics analyst matched Salinas’ gun with the shells from the scene. However, Salinas went on the run and was not recaptured for another 15 years. At his trial the prosecution attempted to introduce Salinas’ silence as evidence. Salinas objected on Fifth Amendment grounds of self-incrimination. The trial court admitted the evidence and Salinas was found guilty of the homicides. The decision was affirmed by The Fourteenth Court of Appeals and The Court of Criminal Appeals of