Manning's Right to a Speedy Trial Not Violated After 1,000 Days, Judge Rules

[unhappycamper]

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/02/26-7



Pre-trial hearings move to a full court martial trial in June

Manning's Right to a Speedy Trial Not Violated After 1,000 Days, Judge Rules
- Jacob Chamberlain, staff writer
Published on Tuesday, February 26, 2013 by Common Dreams

Bradley Manning has not had his rights violated while waiting in a cell for almost three years before being granted a trial, judge Colonel Denise Lind ruled in a pre-trial hearing Tuesday.

Manning's lawyer, David Coombs, had argued that the prosecution was guilty of "extreme foot-dragging" and "shameful" lack of diligence, which violated Manning's right to a speedy trial—in a final bid that could have had the charges against Manning dismissed.

A soldier in the military has had his or her speedy trial rights violated when it takes over 120 days before an arraignment, Kevin Gosztola reports at FireDogLake, which is the case for Manning. However, Lind ruled in favor of the prosecution who said some of those days didn't actually count in the speedy trial rule, due to “excludable delays” initiated by the prosecution.

The pre-trial hearings will now be certain to move to a full court martial trial in June.

Saturday marked the 1,000th day Manning has been in military custody without trial, and protesters gathered in 70 locations around the world in solidarity with Manning.

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. LOL. In other words there is no such thing as the right to a speedy trial.

Sick and getting sicker.

[qazplm]

2. 120 days is not an absolute

rule under Rule for Court-Martial 707. It's a presumptive rule but it can be rebutted. Trials often take more than 120 days to go to trial for various reasons. I dont know the specifics of this case well enough to say whether the case should have been dismissed or not.

But generally speaking, the relief for violating the rule is dismissing WITHOUT prejudice to refile.

Article 10 is a different rule that deals with folks in pretrial confinement, and that doesn't have a set number, but the government has to show diligence. That's really the rule that would have been applied in this case.