The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution says something about a “speedy trial.”  But neither the text, nor the cases addressing the phrase like Singer and Taranovich, provide much guidance. Like so many constitutional questions, there are things to consider that allow a court to do exactly as it pleases.  In Kentucky, that includes keeping a guy in jail since 2007 without trial.  And there seems to be a strong chance he’s innocent.

Via Radley Balko,

Last month, a prosecutor asked a judge to seize Carlos Lagantta’s shoes, suggesting that they might tie him to bloody footprints left at a crime scene in Old Louisville.

But given that the crime, a young woman’s stabbing death, occurred on Aug. 31, 2007, and that Lagantta had been in jail, awaiting trial for murder for nearly five years, Jefferson Circuit Court Judge Audra Eckerle was not pleased with the request.

Murder is different, of course. No statute of limitations. No statutory speedy trial limitations. No bail requirement.  Essentially, the defendant can be held in jail forever awaiting trial.  Except for that 6th Amendment thing.

But why is it taking so long?

A judge had ordered the DNA tested in 2009 — yet it took nearly three years to get the tests done and results back. And instead of implicating Lagantta, the DNA matched a key witness against him, John Burkhead, a man who had a relationship with Tatro, discovered her body and told police Lagantta was the last person he had seen with her.

By my calendar, 2009 is still two years after the arrest, left unexplained.  As for three years to get test results, the prosecution explains.

[The original prosecutor, Jason] Butler, who is in private practice now, acknowledged it took a long time to get the DNA testing, but denied dragging his feet. He argued that getting DNA tests is a lengthy procedure exacerbated in past years in Kentucky, as labs were unable to keep up with soaring demand.

Butler added that the testing was drawn out even longer by the problems in getting samples taken from [witness for the prosecution] Burkhead and another man, as requested by the defense. At one point, Butler said, Burkhead and the other man showed up for the samples to be taken but were mistakenly sent home by a sheriff’s deputy. He said they then refused to come back, delaying the case because they had to be tracked down.

And the prosecution chalks the delay up to the defense for requesting DNA testing, and further requesting that the prosecution’s prime witness be tested?  How dare the defense do its job!  How dare they expect the state to do its. 

The current prosecutor, Alice Jones takes the critical position, “it’s not my fault.”

Jones, who is the third lead prosecutor in the Lagantta case, defended her handling of the case to Eckerle in April, saying there had been no delays on the commonwealth’s part since she took over late last year.

This is always a fun point, that while the prosecutor’s before may have been dilatory and negligent, don’t blame me.  As if this is all about one individual rather than a representative of the state. 

While the defendant has been moved from the jailhouse to house arrest in Louisville, the prosecution drags on and he remains under the court’s custody.

“This case has dragged on for five years,” Eckerle said. “It’s not fair. The commonwealth has an obligation to bring him to trial. Five years … is inexcusable.”

Apparently, we not only have different definitions of “speedy,” but of “inexcusable” as well.  If there can be no excuse for this ridiculously lengthy delay, which has clearly prejudiced the defendant both by his pre-trial (used in the broadest sense) incarceration combined with the impact on witness availability and memory, then it should not, as a matter of constitutional law, be permitted.

If only Kentucky had a judge presiding over this case who might use the authority of her office to do something about this inexcusable delay?

Of course, if the court was to dismiss the indictment, it could wreak havoc on the system. Sure, there being no statute of limitations, the prosecution would always be free to conduct any investigation it wants and, in the event they come up with evidence that doesn’t point away from the defendant they want to prosecute and directly at their primary witness, they could re-indict.  But then, that would mean they couldn’t keep Lagantta under their thumb.

He might flee the jurisdiction. He might flee the country. He might stay right where he is thinking that the DNA test is pretty darned helpful to his defense and fully prepared to beat the case should the prosecution decide to ignore the evidence and prosecute him anyway.

No matter. It’s only five years of Carlos Lagantta’s life lost awaiting the State of Kentucky to get off the dime.  It’s not like anybody really cares.  And speedy is such a relative word, right Judge Eckerle?