Supreme Court justices hear speedy-trial case

The defense failed to provide information in a timely fashion, a prosecutor said.
By MICHELE C. HLADIK
VINDICATOR CORRESPONDENT
COLUMBUS -- Excessive time spent waiting for a defendant to disclose witnesses and evidence to prosecutors should stop his or her "speedy trial clock," Assistant Portage County Prosecutor Pamela Holder told the Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Holder said prosecutors are penalized and improperly prepared for cases when they do not know what witnesses or evidence the defense plans to present during a trial.
In 2004, Eric Palmer was convicted of the aggravated burglary of a Portage County home.
Before the trial, prosecutors filed for discovery of defense witnesses.
A delay in providing the information to prosecutors extended the trial start date past the 90 days allowed to guarantee an incarcerated person a speedy trial.
The trial court judge dismissed defense motions to dismiss the case due to exceeding the 90-day limit and allowed the "clock" to stop for 30 of the 60 days it took the defense to provide the information. The case proceeded and Palmer pleaded no contest. The 11th District Court of Appeals overturned the conviction and sentence and stated prosecutors should have brought the matter to the court before the speedy-trial clock ran out.
Foresees further delays
According to Holder, requiring prosecutors to file a motion anytime the defense delayed providing the information would bog down an already busy court system.
She said it would force prosecutors to file the motions to compel at the same time they requested discovery information. She said this is already done in many Portage County cases.
Ravenna attorney Stephen Lawson represented Palmer before the high court.
Lawson said courts should consider the reasons for the delays before penalizing the defendant. He said the delay could be the only strategy for the defense.
Justices Maureen O'Connor and Judith Lanzinger questioned Lawson on this.
"Isn't there something wrong with the clock continuing even if you don't provide discovery?" Justice Lanzinger questioned.
Lawson also said there are other avenues other than extending time or stopping the clock. He said the lawyers could be sanctioned or unable to present the evidence at the trial if an unnecessary delay is found.
Justice O'Connor questioned whether that would open appeals due to ineffectiveness of council.
Chief Justice Thomas Moyer also questioned Lawson on the defendant's right to a speedy trial and asked if the defense shared the burden to make sure a speedy trial was possible.
He said everyone on both sides of an issue and within the system has a responsibility to make the trial speedy, to get the matter resolved and to stop the "cat and mouse" games.
The court did not say when it would decide the case.