I have to waive my right to a speedy trial in order to obtain a public defender.

[cassanova]

As the title states, in order to obtain a public defender I will have to waive my right to a speedy trial.

I do not like this. I'm supposed to have the right to counsel and a speedy trial by both the federal and state constitutions. I will have to plead not guilty (which I planned on doing) at the arraignment in order to get the public defender and at which time I will also have to waive my speedy trial right. I don't have an arraignment date yet, so this still leaves me with some time to determine what I'm going to do.

My Federal Government professor and I were talking and we both agreed that this practice seems wrong. It's done because the system is very backed up.

He mentioned the pros and cons to me about waiving and not waiving my rights. The pro is, there is a possibility the state might not get my case to trial in time, hence I'd walk if they don't. The con is that the state might push through my trial faster than normal and this could be bad because public defenders are under funded, staffed, and under financed, hence increasing my chances of being found guilty. With my luck, I have the feeling it will be the latter of the two.

If I don't waive my right to speedy trial and still demand my right to court appointed counsel as per Miranda, then I am also taking a stand for others that are and will be in the same type of situation. I'm certain this would utterly piss off the state and the biggest drawback is that it could result in jail time for reasons previously mentioned.

There is a big part of me that want's to take a stand and not waive any of my rights based on the principle of I shouldn't have to waive one right to get another. As I said, there called rights, it means something I'm entitled to. By taking a stand, I am not only protecting my rights, but the rights of others that will be in similar situations.

I think it's pretty obvious what the other part of me is thinking,so I won't go into detail about that. Other than I'll feel like a selfish ass if I don't take a stand.

I know this all seems like a "no brainer" situation, but I'm really on the fence here.

Any input is welcome, as long as it doesn't get political in nature.

[iamlowsound]

Honestly, from my view of it, I would take the stand and demand all my rights; but my view might change drastically if I were in your shoes. Take that with a grain of salt.

lowsound

[Cabazon]

If you waive a right, is it a right?

[basstotheface]

Waive the right. No one will ask you to be their martyr so they get to have a speedy trial, don't piss the courts off, it can only end bad for you.

[cassanova]

Originally Posted by Cabazon

If you waive a right, is it a right?

That is my exact thought.

[cassanova]

Originally Posted by basstotheface

Waive the right. No one will ask you to be their martyr so they get to have a speedy trial, don't piss the courts off, it can only end bad for you.

I'm not looking to be a martyr nor am I looking to piss the court off, though I know that's going to happen (pissing off the court) if I refuse to waive my rights. I am looking to protect myself at all costs, even if it does happen to piss the court off. My rights are very important to me and I don't think they should be trampled on by anyone, especially by the very system that boasts about and supposedly guarantees me them under constitutional law.

As for the only ending badly for me. There can still be 1 of 3 positive outcomes.

There is a chance the state will drop the charges. According to my father, who is also the "victim," The States Attorney told him they have a very weak case.

There is also the chance that it might not make it to trial in time. It's a misdemeanor, so they only have 90 days from the time of arrest to bring it to trial. 7 of which have already gone by. Oh yes, I'm counting.

The 3rd positive ending is if I get adequate representation, then there is a decent chance of me getting an acquittal. There were enough people that saw the incident that are writing statements on my behalf and others that know my father is a violent man, that this should result in an acquittal even if they have to push it through. But I'm a realist and know that's not how it always works.

[basstotheface]

I see what you mean, and agree on a lot of things but remember right now you are the one that matters don't do anything out of prinicipal. If you think this gives you the best chance of having a positive ending, i hope you do t and wish you luck, but if the other optiom is even slightly better odds pick that, the end result is all that matters, try to get there as easy as possible.

[cheezewiz]

Sure, stand up for your rights and defend yourself. THAT isn't stupid. (that's sarcasm)

Listen, you're CRAZY if you go against any kind of criminal charge without an attorney, even a public defender. If you have to waive speedy trial to get one, do it.

[Jim Campbell]

Originally Posted by basstotheface

Waive the right. No one will ask you to be their martyr so they get to have a speedy trial, don't piss the courts off, it can only end bad for you.

i'm not sure that any concrete answers are had here w/o knowing the particulars........i've heard of us cases where the right to a speedy trial was negated by defendants who attempted to delay in hopes of beating charges on those very grounds.....ask for a lawyer,refuse to waive any rights,and if you are subsequently denied anything you are entitled to under law,you have grounds for appeal.....

[Waterpilot]

I doubt the courts would really care. They have a million things going on... You may make your attorney a little angry though as he/she now has less time to prepare your defense.

Personally, I would never do anything without an attorney so... As long as your decision still ends up with you being represented by counsel I don't see any problems.

EDIT: You said State, not courts like I thought... Yeah, it could piss them off. haha

[cassanova]

Originally Posted by cheezewiz

Sure, stand up for your rights and defend yourself. THAT isn't stupid. (that's sarcasm)

Listen, you're CRAZY if you go against any kind of criminal charge without an attorney, even a public defender. If you have to waive speedy trial to get one, do it.

Oh, no sir. I wasn't planning on representing myself, that would be the single dumbest thing I could do in my life.

I was up all night researching this topic and to be honest, it didn't really yield any useful results for me. I'm thinking about calling the ACLU and finding out if they can (for lack of better wording) force/coerce me into giving up my rights in order to get other rights I'm entitled by law.

The general consensus among family is to not waive the rights and since I know you're in law enforcement, you have a much better knowledge of how the system works than I do, so I'm taking what you said very seriously.

[MakiSupaStar]

Originally Posted by cheezewiz

Sure, stand up for your rights and defend yourself. THAT isn't stupid. (that's sarcasm)

Listen, you're CRAZY if you go against any kind of criminal charge without an attorney, even a public defender. If you have to waive speedy trial to get one, do it.

This

[Mark Latimour]

Get a lawyer. If you don't, you may end up with plenty of time to research the constitutional validity of the decision from the inside of a cell. If you need to take out a loan to get a lawyer, do it (especially if you are convinced that you can get off).

[Febs]

Originally Posted by cassanova

If I don't waive my right to speedy trial and still demand my right to court appointed counsel as per Miranda, then I am also taking a stand for others that are and will be in the same type of situation.

While it's been quite a while since I read either decision, my recollection is that it was Gideon v. Wainwright that established the right to have counsel provided by the state. Miranda v. Arizona dealt with the right to have have counsel present during custodial interrogation.

It's also my recollection that Gideon only requires the state to provide counsel to those who are unable to afford their own counsel. If you can afford your own attorney, hire one. He will be able to give you much better advice regarding whether and to what extent it is in your interest to waive other rights.

[Deluge Of Sound]

Originally Posted by Febs

If you can afford your own attorney, hire one. He will be able to give you much better advice regarding whether and to what extent it is in your interest to waive other rights.

+1.

[CapnSev]

Originally Posted by cheezewiz

Sure, stand up for your rights and defend yourself. THAT isn't stupid. (that's sarcasm)

Listen, you're CRAZY if you go against any kind of criminal charge without an attorney, even a public defender. If you have to waive speedy trial to get one, do it.

+1

To even have a shred of a chance, you need a lawyer. Public denfenders are generally really good lawyers, in fact, often times they are better than private lawyers. They know everybody in the courtroom, and they do it every day. In fact, I would take a public defender over a private lawyer any day of the week.

There is no official universal mandate on a "speedy" trial. Speedy trial statutes vary in every state. In the federal system, you can sit around for 3 months before ever seeing a judge, and it's still "speedy".

My guess is that they want you to waive your right to due process, and take a deal so that they can avoid a trial at all costs.

[Deluge Of Sound]

Originally Posted by CapnSev

My guess is that they want you to waive your right to due process, and take a deal so that they can avoid a trial at all costs.

Probably true.

I'm not sure that I'd take a public defender over a private one, though. It depends on the case.

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by CapnSev

Public denfenders are generally really good lawyers, in fact, often times they are better than private lawyers. They know everybody in the courtroom, and they do it every day. In fact, I would take a public defender over a private lawyer any day of the week.

I wouldnt necessarily say that is so (about the bold part) though I wouldnt outright disagree, either. I agree that the PD would know the people in that courtroom, but I hired a lawyer once from Beverly Hills, who knew the people in my courtroom as well as every court in the Los Angeles area. He told me my court was a tough one but was able to work out a deal with the DA and I never had to go to court. I also once had a public defender who was able to get me 6 months probabtion and a $150 fine when I was completely innocent. Though, had the full charges stuck the fine would have been much steeeper.

[CapnSev]

Originally Posted by Deluge Of Sound

Probably true.

I'm not sure that I'd take a public defender over a private one, though. It depends on the case.

Trust me, you want the public defender.

Public defenders get a bad rep, because they are the "free lawyer", when in reality they deal with criminal law every day, all day. On top of that, everybody knows them because they are part of the daily courtroom work group with the prosecutors and the judges.

If you bring in a private lawyer, they will most likely charge you by the hour, and therefore push hard for a trial. Pushing for a trial by an "outsider" really pisses off the prosecution and the judge, and if you lose, they will throw the book at you for the extra work you've created for them. On top of that, your private lawyer will probably have less trial experience, because most of them practice some other kind of law for their main gig.

I work in juvenile criminal court, and I see it every day.

[MEKer]

Originally Posted by Jim Campbell

i'm not sure that any concrete answers are had here w/o knowing the particulars........i've heard of us cases where the right to a speedy trial was negated by defendants who attempted to delay in hopes of beating charges on those very grounds.....ask for a lawyer,refuse to waive any rights,and if you are subsequently denied anything you are entitled to under law,you have grounds for appeal.....

Sounds like the right move. Waiving rights usually ends up biting you in the azz. The court will not see you as a "nice guy" just because you waive something, and then because of your waiving decide to be sweet.