New York Criminal Lawyer Blawg

Speedy Trial -- 6th Amendment Rights in a New York Criminal Case

The defense of a speedy trial violation is an important part to any criminal matter. The best criminal defense will focus on the speedy trial time and if the accused rights have been violated by unnecessary delay.

Recently, the Westchester County Court in White Plains made a speedy trial ruling that was overturned on appeal. Any criminal defense action must focus on speedy trial time to protect the accused rights.

In People v Brown, 69 AD3d 871 (2010) the 2nd Department found the Supreme Court erred in finding that 109 days between the defendant's request for a felony hearing and the scheduled hearing date was excludable.

The defendant was arraigned on a felony complaint in the local court on February 16, 2006. He was subsequently indicted on charges in Westchester County, White Plains for assault on a police officer and resisting arrest. The prosecution announced readiness for trial on June 15, 2007, 484 days after the arraignment in the local justice court.

The defense attorney's response of "that's fine" when told the parties would be notified of the felony hearing date did not constitute clearly expressed consent to an unspecified and unlimited delay. That length of the adjournment was a result of court congestion did not excuse the prosecution from timely declaring readiness for trial.

The Speedy Trial Hearing in Westchester County, White Plains New York

At the hearing on speedy trial no showing was made regarding the unavailablity of the injured police officer was the basis for the prosection's failure to decare ready for the hearing CPL 30.30(4)(g). The prosecution failed to meet its burden of showing that the challenged periord was excludable.

The best criminal defense attorney will always explore any speedy trial violations and should be well versed in CPL 30.30 and the 6th Amendment.

BY: DAVID R. SACHS, ESQ.

In August 2010, at a trial held in Yonkers before Westchester County Family Court Support Magistrate Michele Reed Bowman, Riebling, Proto & Sachs successfully argued that their client, a retired fireman living in Florida with his new wife and their twin twelve year old sons, should not be required to pay to his ex-wife the full amount of child support required to be paid by New York State Child Suppport Guidelines. RPS argued that the court should deviate from the child support guidelines and that the Father should pay less because of the needs of his twin sons from his second marriage. During the trial, proof of the Father's expenses for his twin sons was submitted to the court. Relying on New York Family Court Act Section 413(f), the Support Magistarte held that under the cirmcumstances an order directing the Father to pay the full amount of child support would be unjust and/or inappropriate. As a result, the Father was ordered to pay thousands less per year.