The Jersey Lawyer

In State v. Tsetsekas, decided on December 14, 2009, the Appellate Division gave some teeth to the constitutional speedy trial requirement in DWI prosecutions.  Generally, motions to dismiss a case in Municipal Court for failure to provide the defendant with a speedy trial are looked at by municipal court judges with skepticism and are rarely granted.  However, in this case, the Appellate Division held that a delay of nearly one year occasioned by the prosecutor not being prepared to proceed to trial while the defendant appeared on multiple occasions and was prepared for trial warranted a dismissal on speedy trial grounds.

The Appellate Division first noted that the right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the United States constitution.  The United States Supreme Court has announced a four-part test to determine when a delay in bringing a matter to trial infringes upon a defendant’s right to a speedy trial.  The four factors for courts to consider are: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion of his right to a speedy trial; and (4) prejudice to the defendant.   None of these factors weighs any heavier than the other factors, but rather, the factors are examined and balanced as a whole.

With respect to the first factor, the Appellate Division noted that the delay of almost one year in this case was five months longer than the 60-day period in which DWI prosecutions are supposed to be disposed.  The Appellate Division also noted that the delays in this case were numerous, mostly avoidable, and largely unexplained.   With respect to the second factor, the Court noted that the delays were not intended to hamper the defense; however, all of the delays were caused by the State’s inability to proceed and failure to secure its own witnesses.  With respect to the third prong, counsel for defendant timely asserted his client’s right to a speedy trial by writing to the court to complain directly about the State’s repeated adjournment requests.  With respect to the final factor, the court held that while the delay did not prejudice the defendant’s ability to defend on the merits; however, it did cause the defendant a significant drain in finances by incurring unnecessary counsel and expert fees, and also caused the defendant significant anxiety for an extended period of time.  Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that all four factors warranted a reversal in defendant’s conviction for DWI.

In any DWI case, it is important for a New Jersey DWI lawyer to diligently pursue discovery on behalf of his client and to assert his client’s rights when appropriate.  Counsel’s diligence often opens up opportunities for a favorable result for a client charged with DWI or any other municipal or criminal offense in New Jersey.  Therefore, anyone charged with DWI in New Jersey should contact a New Jersey DWI lawyer for assistance.