Speedy trial is a guarantee, both to defendants as well as society.  It says so in the Constitution.  It says so in some state laws.  Under most circumstances, the failure to provide a speedy trial rests with the prosecution, whether for failure to get their act together or the loss of a necessary witness at a critical moment.  Courts do their best to avoid it, as it means a potential criminal walks.

In California, however, time ran out.  From the Los Angeles Times :

In a unanimous ruling, the California Supreme Court on Monday upheld the dismissal of 18 criminal cases, two of them felonies, in Riverside County because there were not enough judges to hear them.

“The lack of available courtrooms and judges was attributable to the Legislature’s failure to provide a number of judges and courtrooms sufficient to meet the rapidly growing population in Riverside County,” wrote [Chief Justice Ronald M.] George, who has been lobbying legislators for years for more judges.

The article was later updated to note the extended implications of the decision.

The ruling also was a victory for defendants in an additional 300 Riverside County criminal cases that had been dismissed for lack of judges and were on appeal, said County Deputy Public Defender Wiliam A. Meronek. 

On the one hand, if the government wants to put people away, it has to provide the resources necessary to fulfill the legal duties that are required of it.  Defendants can’t be held for extended periods of time, whether in jail or with the threat of conviction hanging over their heads, because the state wants to prosecute on the cheap. 

At the same time, this failure may well result in people who have committed crimes being allowed to walk away, taking the message that they are now free to commit another crime with impunity.  All they need do is hold out for trial.  Roll the dice and they not only have the chace to win before a jury, but win because they will never get to a jury.  There is a reason we have criminal laws, and that’s to prevent people from committing crimes, and then committing them again.

California’s failure to fulfill one of its basic missions, however, is exacerbated by the tough on crime attitude held so dear by some prosecutors.  As Meronek notes:

“The courts are just overwhelmed by both the exponential growth in population and by some extent to the district attorney’s charging policy,” Meronek said. “They tend to pursue everything, and they are reluctant to plea bargain or negotiate any settlement.”]

The mindless, simplistic approach toward criminal justice that’s been applauded and rewarded for decades is finally coming home.  Ironically, the idea that if the defense held firm, stopped begging for pleas or cooperation deals and let the system run its course, the courts would collapse under the weight of the never-ending stream of criminal laws and over-enforcement.  But this didn’t happen. 

Whether because defense lawyers advise their clients to take pleas because it was the right thing to do, or because it meant less work for their fee, can only be discerned on a case by case basis.  But the path they beat to the prosecutors’ door emboldened ever more draconian plea offers under harsher laws, until there was nothing left to give.  There’s no reason to plea to the charge and take a chance on sentence, or even give away more than the minimum, under almost any circumstance. 

So defendants demand a trial, as is their right, not because they are brave or tough, savvy or shifty, but because prosecutors left them no viable alternative.  They outsmarted themselves.  They out-toughed themselves.

The system has long been out of balance, ranging from the monies expended on indigent defense to the cost of incarceration versus education, to the laws that seek to micromanage every aspect of human existence by manufacturing crimes of every stripe based on fortuitous outcomes with no necessary nexus.  It’s not going back any time soon, as society has come to expect a new law every time a dead child turns up, as if we can eliminate tragedy by criminalizing breathing.

The California Supreme Court’s decision took a strong stand, holding that the absence of a sufficient number of judges and courtrooms is not a burden on the defendants’ shoulders, but a failure of the government to fulfill its duty.  It wouldn’t have been terribly difficult for the court to have gone the other way, calling it a mere administrative glitch and holding it unfair to burden the prosecution, or society, by freeing criminals to rape and pillage. 

Is building courtrooms and buying rayon robes more important than educating children and feeding the hungry?  Different people will answer this question differently, but the court sent a message to prosecutors that they must work within existing resources to prosecute those most worthy, and stop the hardball tactics that win elections and make them the darling of the tough on crime crowd. 

If only the next big state court ruling will hold that the failure to provide adequate representation to indigent defendants, by overburdening public defenders, we might well be on the road to returning a bit of balance to the system.  We’ll work on some of the other stuff, like testilying cops and junk science, next.  As a variation on the punchline to the old lawyer joke goes, 318 dismissals is a good start,