Not responding on the substance of THIS case, which I haven’t really been following, but some thoughts on the broader legal issues raised on this thread.
I don’t know how NJ state courts have been but federal courts have been a mess. We had this brief period in the fall where we were able to seat juries and we got a couple trials in, and then it basically shut down again. It’s so hard to have all the moving pieces of a complex trial ready to go, not knowing if enough jurors will be available. So what ended up happening was that a couple smaller/simpler trials got accomplished but more complex ones didn’t. And now we’re in a holding pattern again. It’s really hard. I am sure the pandemic has had some impact on the timing of this trial.
The right is fact-specific, what is sufficiently fast depends on the circumstances. Part of the right is the right to a jury trial, and if you literally cannot empanel a jury because of a pandemic then that’s a fact that is considered when deciding whether there was sufficient delay that the Sixth Amendment was violated. The defendant could press for it and try to move for an earlier trial date, but that usually being agreeing to a “Zoom trial” or a bench trial and so far that’s not something my office’s defendants have been eager to do. Some passage of time can be a benefit to a defendant, especially a non-detained defendant. But even a detained defendant may benefit from additional time to build the case or seek a plea deal. I completely agree that this is a really non-ideal situation. I don’t agree that the right is a “joke” more broadly. And given a pandemic outside the court’s control, I don’t know what anyone wants the court to do differently here.
I agree with @soloudinhere that it really hasn’t been an unusually long period of time. I think Law and Order and shows of that type have conditioned people to think a case goes from investigation to jury verdict in the space of a commercial break but that’s pretty unrealistic.
Criminal discovery is primarily a one way street (not entirely but largely) with the prosecution having the duty to disclose a lot of material and the defense having more of an optional role in collecting its own discovery. From the article posted (which has limited detail) it sounds like the prosecution had a lot of information, including loads of social media posts, and turned that over to the defense. The defense was needing to take a lot of time to wade through it. I didn’t see mention of the defense gathering its own evidende, though it could. Whether it could be disclosed depends a lot on whether any orders have been entered in the criminal case governing the disclosure of discovery as well as rules of professional conduct that condition what an attorney can say about a pending case s/he is litigating. After the case there’s a lot more leeway in what can be said (if the parties want to speak about the case). While a case is pending there are rules that try to prevent the defendant from being “tried in the press” that don’t necessarily apply after the case is 100% concluded.
[quote=“MorganSercu, post:33, topic:471737”]
And, of course, just because a plea deal is offered doesn’t mean the defendant has to accept it if a jury or bench trial is desired. Is that correct? Not saying it makes the most sense for any defendant. But clients don’t always take the advice of their attorneys for a variety of reasons.
[/quote].
No defendant has to take a plea if entitled to a trial (a jury trial in the criminal case).
So this is a lot more complex than a judge being “confused about the law.” Jury instructions don’t just drop out of the sky. The parties in a case propose them to the judge and then the judge has to decide what instructions will be given to the jury. The instructions have to be based on the law, of course, but also each side wants to draft the language in a way that is better for his/her client/side of the case. The judge then has to wade though and make a decision as to what language actually gets read. There are “pattern” jury instructions but they don’t necessarily cover all fact situations in every case and they still often need to be tailored. Along the way, that’s where error can creep in-- where one side asks for a particularly slanted or not-quite-right spin on the law and convinces the judge to use that instruction. Or there can be novel issues of law where the trial judge is having to decide what state law is without the benefit of a decision from the binding superior court. So it’s not that the judge is “confused.”
Moreover that error I described above isn’t the only kind of error. There are all kinds of errors. For example, if the defendant was arguing self defense and the judge didn’t give an instruction on that issue (oversight or didn’t believe that the defense met the elements for the defense sufficient for the jury to consider it) and later on appeal the appellate court said the instruction should have been given-- that is error too. In the case you cite it looks like the judge just omitted PART of a pattern instruction…
So it’s not that the law is so confusing that even judges don’t know what the law is-- the issue is that the judge is the gatekeeper at trial and is a human being who sometimes makes mistakes in fulfilling that gatekeeper role. Which is what, in part, the appeals process is there to catch and fix.
This is very situation dependent. The victims in my case have no “say” in what pleas are offered, though as a courtesy I do keep them in the loop. The victim isn’t a party in a criminal case. S/he may be a witness and s/he is important-- but at the end of the day the case is US v. Defendent or NJ v. Defendant and not Victim v. Defendant. In a civil case, the “victim” is the plaintiff so is the party bringing suit and has to agree to any settlement.
I do think the prosecutor in your case did the right thing by feeling you out about a plea. But at the end of the day you didn’t have veto power. If the prosecutor felt a plea was a just outcome it should have been offered and accepted even if it displeased you. Which is not to say any prosecutor wants to create a situation where the victim is unhappy about a plea, but it happens. Often the victim is happy not to go to trial.
I’m going to do a separate thread about the civil case both because this is already long and also to keep the issues separate.
