Anxious to fulfill its duty to protect the people of Utah, the Attorney General's Office is asking the Supreme Court to fix a speedy trial rule that could allow criminals to avoid prosecution.

The brief, which was addressed to the Utah Supreme Court, will request the Court’s help in clarifying the rule regarding speedy trial. The brief was written by the Utah Attorney General's Office, and was signed by attorney generals in 38 states.

The rule in question, which was created by the Vermont Supreme Court last spring, stated that a judge should also allow pretrial delays caused by a public defender. The Vermont ruling, according to a press release issued by the Attorney General’s office, held that since the government had an obligation to provide counsel, the public defender became an ‘arm of the state,’ and thus has the ability to delay trial.

The original right to a speedy trail was issued in 1972, when the United States Supreme Court decided that each defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to a speedy and public trial. To maintain the timely nature of a trial, the Court decided that judges could only consider delays caused by the government and not by the defendant.

The error with the Vermont ruling, according to Assistant Attorney General Ryan Tenney, was that it could al-low public defenders to delay trials and block the judicial process.

“[This ruling would make the government] lose its ability to prosecute a criminal, based on the ‘unwillingness’ of a public defender to move the case forward,” Tenney said.

Such accordance took place in Vermont in March when Michael Brillon, a man convicted of domestic abuse was released because the case took too long.

“In mid-March, the Vermont Supreme Court overturned the conviction with a 3-2 vote, ruling the state failed to uphold Brillon’s constitutional right to a speedy trial,” according to the Burlington Free Press. Brillon had six different attorneys during his legal battle.

Another consequence of this ruling is that it will blur the lines between prosecutors and public defenders, “and will create different rights for defendants who cannot afford their own lawyer,” according to a press release issued by the Attorney General’s office.

Advocates for domestic violence victims are also asking the U.S. Supreme Court to change the Vermont ruling, arguing that domestic violence abusers will use the law to drag out their trial in a further attempt to humiliate and control their victims.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case in early January and will issue a ruling the following spring.

Copyright Brigham Young University 4 Dec 2008