Reply
Sun 25 Nov, 2007 02:00 am
This statement is always used in realistic cop shows like Law and Order but how can it be true when actor Robert Blake spent three years in jail awaiting trial for the murder of his wife of which he was acquited.
So a 70 year old man spent 3 years in prison, which at his age could well have been a life sentence for a crime the court decided he wasn't guilty of.
How is this a speedy trial?
The only show on tv that is even close to reality is "COPS" imo.
The defendant must have waived his right to a speedy trial.
since no one else has replied it seems I'm no wiser TTH, if the cops couldn't make a case in three years because of lack of evidence why would Mr blake give up his right to a speedy trial?
In preliminaries, the defendant waives his right to a speedy trial to allow his attorneys to do what it is that they get paid for....
It is really not a lot like the telly...
Often a trial is put off because the defense is building its case.
The longer you wait for trial, the more likely it is that witnesses will forget or evidence will be lost. It also gives the defense time to investigate everything that the police have. In the US the state has to share its evidence with the person they are charging with a crime.
parados wrote:Often a trial is put off because the defense is building its case.
The longer you wait for trial, the more likely it is that witnesses will forget or evidence will be lost. It also gives the defense time to investigate everything that the police have. In the US the state has to share its evidence with the person they are charging with a crime.
Here is a good explanation
As has been stated, he waived his right to speedy trial, and had a couple of attorneys withdraw from representing him, requiring continuances. In order to grant the continuances to his new attorneys, the judge required Blake to waive his right to a speedy trial, otherwise the continuance wouldn't have been granted.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace