Policy Changes For Speedy Trial In NY1

Surname 1

Name

Professor’s name

Course

Date

Policy changes for speedy trial in NY

Abstract

The Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) section 30.30 of the New York’s criminal law poses a

burden, especially upon the prosecutors to be prepared for trial within a given time limit. Failure

to be prepared justifies notice of the action upon prompt motion by the defendants. It had been

uncertain whether the docket overcrowding in the criminal courts is an exceptional situation

excusing delay which would or else need notice or dismissal. For example, in recent times, in

People v. Brothers, the New York’s Court of Appeal asserted that the overcrowding of the

people does not excuse them from ready for trial. However, this indicated in dictum that a

succeeding appeal of at fault may take place as a waiver of the constitutional entitlement to the

notice of dismissal (Keeley 175-176). There is a need of reconstitution the CPL section 30.30

because it will give rights to the people, thus allowing a timely trial for the defendants than the

trial taking a long time in court leading to the congestion of the courts. Therefore, the paper set

out to discuss the need of changing the statute and approaches that can be adopted in achieving a

speedy trial statute.

Keywords: Speedy trial Statute, defendants, case, New York’s Courts, justice, jurisdiction

Surname 2

Introduction

According to the CPL 30.30 statute, if a person is not ready for trial within a period of 6

months of starting an action, the maximum charge is considered a felony. In this case, 90 days

were the maximum charge and are misdemeanor liable to be punished for a time of more than

three months in jail. Besides, 60 days are considered the maximum charge and is misdemeanor

liable to be punished for a period of not exceeding three months. According to the statute, 30

days are considered the serious crime or violation of the law.

The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act (SRCA) of 2015 (S. 2123) can be

considered as a bipartisan bill that was introduced by the Senate of the United States on 1 Oct.

2015. The Senators Mike Lee (R-UT), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Chuck Schumer (S-NY), Cory

Booker (D-NJ), Lidsey Graham (R-SC), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Patrick Leahy, and Senate

Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley Chuck (R-IA) played a role in the introduction of the

bill in the courts of the United States including the New York’s courts. If the bill had to be

passed into law, there will be a reduction of several aspects such as sentences, gun, and drug use.

However, there was a need to change the bill since changing the bill will help in cutting some

reforms while other reforms are expanded (FAMM).

New York City’s courts are in crisis. For example, based on the institution of the “Broken

Windows” that was policed in the mid-nineties, the courts in the New York City were flooded

with various causes, thus preventing the well-timed administration of justice. According to Dunn

(1940, p. 1931-1951), the law is considered dangerous for the prosecutors and offenders. The

great delays in the handling of cases in the New York courts created grave impacts for a number

of defendants across the world (Stokes, 240). The paper suggests various ways that can be

Surname 3

adopted for achieving a speedy trial, and avoiding a routine court hearing that is presumed to be

the cause of a key delay in hearing the cases of various defendants.

The indignations delays in the New York Court’s System when considered a year when

Jenifer Gonnerman introduced readers of the New Yorker to Kalief Browder. He was age 16

when he was detained in 2010 for the burglary, yet he had claimed that he was not at all involved

in the robbery act. Browder was held in the New York City Court for about three years without

having a trial. His dates in the court were changed severally while he was in the court. Over the

three years, Browder was beaten up by the assigned board guards, sent to the private

incarceration, and eventually attempted to hang himself (The Editorial Board, 2015).

Based on the example of the case, the speedy trial statute is required in the New York

Court System. The statute will help in solving various cases within a short time, thus preventing

the defendants from facing rough moments while in the prison. Delays are routine, especially in

the New Work courts. The delays are caused by various aspects. Such causes can be when there

are conflicts among the defense lawyers and the prosecutors or lack of evidence by the

prosecutor. Also, poor defendants can lead to delays in hearing different cases. For example, the

poor defendants can end up waiting in prison for a long time because they cannot get the

suggested bail amount of money. Therefore, the State lawmakers in the New York Court System

can help in solving such an issue by establishing a presumption release of the poor defendants

that may have no risk to the society. The lawmakers in the New York Court Systems are required

to recommend key changes in the speedy trial statute, and are required to consider allocating a

short time for ruling a case.

Surname 4

Literature review

There are various authors that considered the need for analyzing the need for the speedy

trial in the New York Courts. The authors had different views on the causes of the delayed

speedy trials, the reason to make changes to the speedy trial statute, and the ways of achieving in

making changes to the speedy trial statute. The following are some of the authors that identified

the topic matter and analyzed their knowledge based on the need of making changes to the

speedy trial statute in the New York courts.

Hamburg used three defendants in analyzing the New York Court System and after that

suggested that there is a need for the New York courts to make changes to the speedy trial

statute. According to Hamburg (2015, p. 223), Michailon Rue was a 40-year-old Iraq

confrontation experienced person residing in the Bronx. Rue was detained since the prosecutor

claimed that he was found with marijuana in August 2011. Rue rejected the sequence of plea

plans provided by the office of the attorney at the Bronx district headquarter. He upholds his

purity, yet he was never subjected to a trial. However, after he had waited for about fifteen

months with seven appearances in the New York’s courts, the persecution in charge of the case

acknowledged that Rue’s case had run out of time-based the ruling on the Speedy Trial Statute

(Hamburg 224). Therefore, the prosecutor in charge of the Rue’s case dismissed the case in favor

of Rue.

Besides, Diego Melendez was working at the Bronx meat market having three children.

Melendez was frisked by the New York City police and detained after getting a stub of the

marijuana cigarette in the Melendez’s pocket. According to Hamburg (2015, p. 224), Melendez

was detained just like Rue. However, he was forced to appear in the New York court eight times

Surname 5

within the year, and without standing the trial. Hamburg (2015, p. 224) claimed that the

prosecutors were unable to solve the case because the officer who arrested Melendez was absent.

The judge in charge of the case refused to permit additional delay, and the case was silently

dropped (Hamburg 224).

Also, Hamburg gave the third example of a defendant who was affected by the speedy

trial. According to Hamburg (2015, p. 224), Angel Cardona was a seventeen-year-old who was

arrested because he had a stub of marijuana while he was waiting to board a bus in 2011. The

school boy was a student at the Bronx Sound View neighborhood. The officer who was in charge

of arresting Cardona asserted that the school boy was seen smoking on the sidewalk. The school

boy considered presenting his case on trial, but the court forced him to undergo manifold

courtyard dates. It took almost a year of holdup without getting a chance of his court being heard

in the trial court. According to Hamburg 2015, p 224), Cardona’s patience ran out since he had

appeared in the court five times with a prospect of about two months delay.

According to Hamburg (2015), the three situations of the defendants based on the drug

arrests faced different issues. For example, there was no trial even after a long period of delay.

Even though Melendez and Rue’s cases were dropped, either at the insistence or prosecution’s

violation of the judge and Cardona surrendered the existing fight, all the three defendants were

subjected to an interminable delay. According to Hamburg, currently, it is the norm of the New

York City Courts to keep defendants for a long time waiting for their trials.

Besides, according to Lancman (2016), it is true that the New York courts are delaying in

hearing cases. Lancman (2016) claimed that the low-level cases are adjudicated. Lancman

asserted that in 2014, there were about 303, 284 defendants, and about 58.1% of the population

Surname 6

(176, 417 defendants) were settled at an arraignment either by a guilty plea or a dismissal. About

41.9% cases (126, 867 defendants) were moved forward. According to the speedy trial statute, a

misdemeanor case is required to be resolved within 60 days – 90 days. However, it took about

140 days for the 2014 case to be resolved. According to Lancman (2016), the defendants sat on

the Rikers Island since they were unable to bail the high cost that was claimed by the New York

court. Defendants, Defense Counsel, victims, and prosecutors made several unproductive

appearances in the courts. The strain grinded the minds of the defendants and victims in the New

York courts, thus leading to the distortion of the results, and fading of the memories.

To some extent, Lancman (2016) agreed that the delays in the speedy trials may be

because of the lack of enough court officers, judges, and courtrooms. Also, the author claimed

that the cause of the delayed trials can be the random discovery procedures that aggravate

promptly plea plan negotiations. Lastly, Lancman asserts that the cause of the delayed speedy

trials can be because the statute permits the defendants, prosecutors, or any other related parties

to game the judicial system. However, the author is not happy with the delayed nature of the

New York Courts. Lancman (2016) propose the court to amend the speedy trial statute so as to

help in faster solving of cases in the New York courts.

According to Battaglia (2015, p.3), reducing least jails for drug lawbreakers does not get

rid of detaining options for the judges. However, lessening mandatory least detention would

reinstate prudence to juries in whom it is suitably vested. Battaglia asserted that periods of

research had made it apparent that lessening obligatory least detentions for laws relating to drug

violation are the suitable policy review that would help in leading to a lot of dollars in

investments.

Surname 7

The reasons for the delays of the speedy trial in the New York Courts

The slow nature of courts in the New York City is not a new aspect that we should be

surprised to see or hear from different defendants. The slow action in solving cases in the New

York courts is caused by various issues. For example, the key aspect leading to the sluggish

solving of cases in the New York courts is because of the unsuccessful speedy trial statute that

was established in the courts (CPL 30.30) (Hamburg 231). The emergence of the “Broken

Window” policing is also a cause of the delayed resolving of the cases in the NY courts. The

“Broken Window” is a policy in the New York courts that emphasizes the stern enforcement of

little quality-life cases, and the policy has produced a big flow in the offense detentions that the

judges cannot keep up (Hamburg 231).

Also, the second cause of the sluggish action of the speedy trial statute in the New York’s

courts is because of the prolonged delays in the criminal act cases characteristically gain more

concern and attention than those in the transgressions. As such, criminal act comprises of the

bulk of the legitimate speedy trial crimes, leaving little crimes for the defendants to depend upon

in claiming their views. Besides, the prevailing opinion among the judges and legislators is the

key cause of delayed solving of cases in the New York courts. The delayed heating of the

defendant’s case has greatly undermined the rapid justification of the tight to the speedy trial

(Hamburg 232).

Moreover, a delay of the speedy trial in the New York’s courts is because of the

insufficiency and unreliability of the existing evidence due to the poor investigation. Sometimes

the concerned people in looking for evidence do not adequately play their roles, thus leading to

Surname 8

the poor investigation that can lead to delayed hearing of the defendant’s case, and this cam leads

to the delays of the speedy trial (Ahmed et al. 352). In case there is no timely and painstaking

conduction of investigations, required evidence can be lost, hence leading to the delayed hearing

of the defendant’s case, thus affecting the New York’s Speedy Trial Statute. Fingerprints and

bloodstains are some of the essential evidence that is required to be collected immediately after

the crime. If these examples are not timely collected, evidence can be lost, therefore, leading to

the delayed hearing of the cases. Furthermore, inadequate and inexperienced qualification of

those put to investigate the case can lead to the delayed hearing of the case, thus affecting the

speedy trial statute. This problem can be solved by using experienced and adequate officers,

hence initiating a speedy trial. (Ahmed et al. 352).

Other causes of the delayed hearing of the cases, consequently leading to the failure of

the speedy trial of the defendants includes lack of coordination and cooperation of the judges and

prosecutors, lack of transparency and other related malpractices, and inadequate preparation for

the trial of the defendants (Ahmed et al. 353-354).

Why the change in the speedy trial is needed

Speedy trial is essential in the New York courts because it will help in protecting the

rights of different people. For example, the statute protecting child witness’ and child victims’

rights offer a further legal defense for the fatality less than eighteen years who are alleged to be

the victim of sexual abuse or physical abuse. Among many other rights safeguarded, the edict

commands that New York courts must make certain that speedy trials specifically delegated

cases including child witnesses and victims to reduce the stress of the kid or the child involved in

Surname 9

the court trial. Therefore, a speedy trial is required since it will help in reducing the level of

stress, especially for children who may face the court (Rickie 189).

The incapability of the New York’s criminal courts, especially the courts in the Bronx,

has vital costs for the performers in not only society but also in the criminal justice system. For

example, some innocent defendants can spend a long period detained in the courts waiting for the

court to hear their cases, particularly in the backlogged offenses. However, other defendants can

be released from the detention based on a low-level crime charges. The New York courts do not

consider that such released defendants can commit serious offenses while they wait for their

cases or justification to be listened from the courts. According to Chief Judge Lippman, such an

example of committing a serious case as the defendant is waiting for his or her trial can be

considered as a nastiest of all domains (Hamburg 228). Hamburg claims that there are

individuals who are risky, yet they are walking and living in our streets. However, there are

innocent individuals, people who cannot harm the world, people with jobs, and people with

families yet they are in jail waiting for their trial (Hamburg 228). Therefore, it could be better if

the New York courts adopt a Speedy Trial Statute since it will help the innocent people from

being delayed in courts while waiting for their trials.

Furthermore, as time goes while waiting for the trial of the defendants, some witnesses

and evidence can disappear. Witnesses can disappear by losing their memories or changing the

stories maybe through being convinced or bribed. Therefore, the capability of the justice system,

judge, or magistrate in determining is the truth of the case is greatly comprised. A good example

of such an issue can be observed from the Bronx prosecutors. The Bronx courts in the New York

are in crisis because of the institutional policy of the “Broken Windows,” mainly in the nineties.

The courts were flooded with numerous misdemeanor situations, thus preventing a prompt

Surname 10

management of justice for the defendants. These cases led to the delays in for the trial of the

defendants. The conviction rates of the prosecutors in the courts fall rapidly as delays in the trial

of the defendants grew. Victims and their families were also suffering waiting for the justice to

be done. Based on this incidence, the New York’s courts are required to consider the essentiality

of adopting the speedy trial since it will help the innocent victims from staying in courts without

a crime.

Additionally, speedy trial is required in the New York’s courts because going in court

each time may mean missing school, missing childcare, missing the job, and eventually missing

salary due to a lost job unless the victim is employed by an understanding employer. Also, the

innocent victims that are seeking a job opportunity may be rejected by the potential employers

when the background analysis identifies an open case within the family. The potential employer

will develop a fear of employing the innocent victim as the court has delayed in putting the

victim on trial in confirming the innocence of the victim (Hamburg 229). These issues such as

unemployment issue due to the fear of the employer and loss of a job due to the frequent

appearance in court can only be solved when the New York’s courts adopt a speedy trial. The

speedy trial will reduce the number of the times the victim or family members appearing in the

court and this can lead to no loss of job given that the victim or family members rarely visit the

court.

The New York courts are required to adopt a speedy trial because the courts are delaying

putting a victim into a trial, thus denying the victim a right to vote (Hamburg 230). Each citizen

in a country has a right to vote. Voting is essential given that it helps in identifying a leader that

can help in the development of society. Therefore, when innocent citizens are denied a right to

vote, unprofessional leaders will be voted by a few free people without considering the opinions

Surname 11

of the innocent victims that are denied a right of voting. Therefore, a right to vote can be assured

to the innocent victims once their trials are completed and the court declare the victim innocent.

This can be done within a short time once the New York’s courts adopt a speedy trial

(Amsterdam 525).

The New York’s citizens need a speedy trial because the speedy trial will help the

innocent victims in acquiring different loans such as bank loans, hence limiting the victim from

personal development. Loans are essential for the development of an individual. However, the

loans are considered to innocent people. A bank cannot loan an individual with a case filed in a

court unless the case is cleared. Therefore, there is a need to have a speedy trial since the speedy

trial will reduce the number of days required put the victim on a trial. If the victim is declared

innocent, such a victim can have a chance of requesting for a loan for self, family, or society

development.

Adoption of a speedy trial by the New York courts is essential since beyond the

touchable of injury that may happen to a victim or family members, a justice system that is

incapable of delivering a speedy trial to a crime defendant and instead establish negotiated

dispositions or guilty pleas can lead to the production of further harmful externalities. The

Criminal Justice System (CJS) of the New York courts can lose an essential confirmation on the

forces since the eminence of their services are seldom tested in the court before the judges or

magistrates. The insight of the integral justice of the statute of Law and Criminal Justice System

suffers as crime victims such as Cardona, Melendez, and Rue are made skeptical, irrespective of

the court ruling in their cases contributed by the slow grinding of the cases (Hamburg 230-231).

Surname 12

What can be done to achieve a speedy trial in the New York’s courts?

There are various approaches or strategies that can be adopted by the New York’s courts

to achieve a speedy trial. For example, the New York Law Enforcer Committee proposed a

strategy that could help in achieving the speedy trail. The proposal was done 29

March 1985

and was depicted in an Assembly Bill 7027 (Vinegrad & Bloom 1). The proposal strategy was

based on the sentencing guiltiness. The guidelines included the offense, the history of the

criminal, and the range or duration of sentencing the criminal. The proposal strategy played an

essential role in considering the need for adopting and achieving the speedy trial under the New

York’s courts justice system. The proposal strategy was considered best for the adoption of the

speedy trial. However, the strategy was never enacted. According to Thomas M. Stark, the New

York Supreme Court Justice (NYSCJ), the proposed strategy of achieving the speedy trial was

never enacted because it was put on the shelf and never remembered by the law enforcers

(Vinegrad & Bloom 1).

Also, the speedy trial can be achieved when the New York State Committee on

Sentencing Guidelines (NYSCSG) and the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) are

created and put to work based on the rights of the citizens. The USSC involves a total of seven

vetting individuals. Three of the vetting members can be judges. A precaution should be taken

when selecting the three judges because judges are not required to be more than four from a team

of seven inspecting members. The members are required to be appointed by the president with

the consent and advice of the Senate. The formed body is required to split the appointment

powers between the legislature and the executive. Besides, each member of the commission,

prosecutors, defense attorneys, magistrates, and judges is assured at least one voice in the trial of

the defendants. This approach is considered essential in achieving the speedy trial since there is

Surname 13

an allowance of an open-ended charge that will help in the quick trial of the defendant rather

than the defendant waiting in court for a long period (Vinegrad & Bloom 2).

Also, the above approach is considered essential in achieving the speedy trial since the

formation of the commission team will positively impact the justice system, thus aiming for the

reduction of the number of prisoners in the New York’s courts. Reduction of the prisoners in the

New York’s courts can only be achieved by the formation of the professional team that can help

in quick hearing from the defendants while on trial, thus helping in quick arrival at the truth. The

approach will help in freeing many innocent New York citizens, thus reducing the number of

prisoners.

Focusing on the alternatives can also help in achieving the goal of adopting a speedy trial

in the New York courts. Alternatives can be the establishment of the education programs and re-

entry programs like the Drug and Community Court Systems (DCCS). The programs will help in

reducing the number of prisoners in the New York’s courts. Also, the programs will help in the

speedy trial of the defendants since the programs would have opened room for the courts to put a

victim on trial, thus reducing the number of victims to be put on trial.

The reasons provided and the causes of the delays in hearing the case of a defendant are

manifold. A number of parties are considered responsible for the delays in hearing the case of the

defendants. Criminal justice and the responsible prosecutors are some of the aspects that are

responsible for the delays of the trial. The factors leading to the delays are interrelated. In order

to achieve a speedy trial, the prosecutor, court, defense counsel, and police are required to

perform their duties as expected (Mahadura et al. 448). The police are required to play an

Surname 14

essential role in making certain that a speedy justice is carried out. The speedy justice can be

carried out by ensuring that their investigations are complete and accurate.

Also, the prosecutors can ensure a speedy trial by screening the cases. Besides, they can

ensure a speedy trial by filing charges in court without wasting any time that can prolong the trial

of the victim. Defense Counsel and prosecutors can also achieve a speedy trial when they cease

from moving for often adjournments of the cases during the trial stages. The judge has a duty to

make sure that the court trial is adjourned without any aspect of delay and presenting judgment

before late (Mahadura et al. 448). This duty can act as a strategy for achieving a speedy trial for

the victims.

An insufficient number of judges that are responsible for handling cases can be the reason

for the delayed trials. Besides, the dual duties of the judges in dealing with criminal and civil

cases can contribute to the observable delays of trials since the judge has to split the days of

hearing criminal and civil cases. The judge has to hear the cases and write the judgments from

the trials, thus making a tiresome job for the judge. This has created a workload for the judges in

the New York’s courts. Increasing the number of judges can help in solving the delays of trials,

and this is the effective approach to achieving a speedy trial for the victims or offenders. This

issue can also be solved by establishing two different courts that can handle criminal and civil

cases. The two courts will have different judges that will be responsible for making judgments

based on the trials.

Sometimes judges may lack experience and knowledge. Ignorance and incompetence of

law and lack of knowledge can be considered the key factor for the delayed trials. Judges are

required to respect the laws governing a country. Therefore, a speedy trial can only be achieved

Surname 15

when knowledgeable and experienced judges are employed in dealing with various cases. A

knowledgeable and experienced judge is considered essential for examining and determining the

truth of the case. Also, a knowledgeable ad experienced judge will carry out his duties according

to the laws that are governing the country, thus achieving justice for the victims. All these can be

done within a short time, thus being a vital approach to achieving a speedy trial (Mahadura et al.

450).

Lack of resources can contribute to the delayed trials in courts. Each year cases are

increasing in each country. The numbers of crimes are increasing with each day. However, the

court personnel has not been increased to meet the increasing demand for trials. Also, the

constant salary for the judges demoralizes the judges in trying to rush with the trials.

Furthermore, the courts are not fitted with devices such as recording devices that can be used for

the storage of trials. Handwriting of the cases is a difficult task that can take a long time. The

speedy trial can only be achieved when the recording devices are installed in the courts. The

recording devices will reduce the time of writing the judges, thus helping in reaching at the truth

of the case within a short time. Demoralization of the judges can be solved through the

compensation or increase of the salary. When a judge is compensated for the hard work, he or

she will be motivated to work extra hard, thus helping in the speedy trial.

Achieving speedy trial can be done by setting the time limit for the completion of the

trials. However, the strategy is not always achieved because different cases come with different

levels. For example, there are some complex cases compared to others, thus making the strategy

fail in achieving a speedy trial. The strategy does not permanently fail in achieving the strategy

because some cases are not complex. Thus, time can be limited to such cases. The strict non-

Surname 16

adjournment policy is required to be established so as judges can avoid their habit of adjourning

the trials during the early stages of the trials.

Conclusion

Basing on the discussion, people have to agree that a speedy trial is essential for their daily

activities. The right of having a speedy trial is considered the basic assurance of the constitution

of a State. This trial has been the mission from the New York courts, yet the justice system is

being used by various states across the world. The issues arising from the speedy trial has not

arisen today, but it is an issue that requires the amendment of the constitution (Tennant 1303).

Therefore, New York courts can solve this issue by reforming the current speedy trial that is

contributing to the delays in the trials. New York courts are required to adopt a genuine Speedy

Trial Statute, a speedy trial that will be mandating the period in which the victim must be

presented to the trial instead of requiring the prosecution to claim that it is ready. The New York

courts are also required to design and implement a statute that will help in decongesting prisons,

and this can only be done when the current Speedy Trail Statute is reformed for the rights to be

granted to the people (Schneider 476). New York courts are required to understand that when

they realize that their justice system is contributing to the delays of trials, they have to eliminate

the system and design a different system that can help in avoiding delays of trials in the courts.

New York courts can avoid the issues they are facing in their courts by first rechecking the

justice system and identifying the best strategies that can help in achieving the speedy trials.

Therefore, the best strategy of adopting the speedy trial by the New York’s courts is by first

amending the current CPL 30.30. Amendment of the current New York court’s law will help in

the establishment of a definite time constant by which the victim of the case must be brought

Surname 17

before the judges for the purpose of trial (Hiscock 253). From the start, the New York courts had

established a “ready rule” that was provided as the watered-down supernumerary for the open

speedy trial rule. Lawfully, it has no sense in the protection of the speedy trial rule since it does

not give citizens a right to a speedy trial, yet the victims are in need of the trial. The trial will

play an essential role in providing freedom for the affected people (Holscher 138-138). Not all

victims are guilty, and adopting the law will help in prompt identification of the criminals from

the innocent people. The New York courts have to play their roles in ensuring that trials are

conducted within a short time, and this can be done only if the courts adopt the speedy trial in

their justice system. New York’s citizens are required to be given a right to the speedy trial since

it is the only tool that will help the victims in knowing their ultimate within a short stipulated

time.

Surname 18

Works Cited

Ahmed, J. M., Kubo, Y., & Ueda, T. Issues Concerning Prosecution in Relation to Conviction,

Speedy Trial, and Sentencing. 352-354. Web. 10 May 2016.

<http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No53/No53_31RC_Group3.pdf>

Amsterdam, A. G. "Speedy Criminal Trial: Rights and Remedies." Stanford Law Review 27.3

(1975): 525.

Battaglia, L. L. Will the U.S. Senate Finally Reform Harsh Mandatory Minimum Sentence for

Drugs?. 2015. Web. 10 May 2016.

Dunn, A. W. "Our Dangerous Criminal Procedure." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

(1931-1951) 30.6 (1940): 888.

FAMM. S. 2123: Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015 (S. 2123). 28 Apr. 2016. Web.

19 May 2016. < http://famm.org/sentencing-reform-and-corrections-act-of-2015/>

Hamburg, D. A Broken Clock: Fixing New York’s Speedy Trial Statute. Columbia Journal of

Law and Social Problems. 2015: 223-231. Web. 10 May 2016.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/jlsp/pdf/Spring2015/Hamburg.pdf

Hiscock, F. H. "Criminal Law and Procedure in New York." Columbia Law Review 26.3 (1926):

253.

Holscher, L. M. "Book Review: The Constitutional Right to a Speedy and Fair Criminal Trial."

Criminal Justice Review 16.1 (1991): 138-140.

Surname 19

Lancman, R. We Need Speedy Trial Reform in the City’s Criminal Courts. New York Law

Journal. 24 Feb. 2016. Web. 10 May 2016. <http://www.bronxdefenders.org/new-york-

law-journal-we-need-speedy-trial-reform-in-citys-criminal-courts/>

Keeley, J. W. CPL 30.30 (4) (g): Court Congestion Not “Exceptional Circumstance” Excusing

Prosecutor’s Failure to be Ready for Trial. St. John’s Law Review. Vol. 55. (2012): 175-

176). Print.

Rickie, B.M. Victim’s Right to the Speedy Trail: Shortcomings, Improvements, and Alternatives

to Legislative Protection. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy. (2013). 189.

Web. 10 May 2016.

<http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1593&context=law_journa

l_law_policy>

Mahadura, T., Ravindra, T., Denda, Y., Sultana, R., Patterasumantg, C., Arimistu, H., Litsuka,

H., & Imafuku, S. Effective Countermeasures for Speedy Trial. 448-450. Print.

Schneider, A. L. "The Right to a Speedy Trial." Stanford Law Review 20.3 (1968): 476.

Stokes, T. "Book Review: Significant Cases in Criminal Procedure." Criminal Justice Review

30.2 (2005): 240-241.

Tennant, J S. "Constitutional Law: Criminal Procedure: Comment by Judge on Evidence."

Michigan Law Review 30.8 (1932): 1303.

The Editorial Board. Total Failure on Speedy Trials in the New York. The New York Times. 15

Apr. 2015. Web. 10 May 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/opinion/total-

failure-on-speedy-trials-in-new-york.html?_r=0>

Surname 20

Vinegrad, A. & Bloom, D. New York’s New Commission on Sentencing Reform: Sentence

Guidelines. New York Law Journal. (2007): 1-2. Print.

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."

Policy changes for speedy trial in NY1

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

Ian McGregor

Shannon Williams