John Todd
Office of the Arizona Attorney General
1275 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email protected] There are at least six reasons why this change would be poor public policy. First, as a general proposition, the closer in time to the event, the more reliable are the factual findings. Thus, trials should be held as close to the time of the crime as reasonably possible. The State, the innocent defendant, and the victim all have a stake in speedy trials. Second, having observed the interaction between court time-limits and litigators for over 30 years, also as a general proposition, more often than not, trials, briefs, and hearings are normally are not held or filed before almost the possible last-day. Granting a longer period simply means things take longer to get done. Third, when courts enforce existing time-periods, litigators comply and cases are resolved. Maricopa County is a prime example of how capital cases progressed was a function of the court enforcing the speedy trial rule. Likewise, in federal district court the enforcement of the rules has contributed to the significant lessening of the capital case backlog. Fourth, the current rules allow for enlargement of the time-limits when there is legitimate justification--Rules 8.2(d), 8.4, and 8.5. Fifth, no other county besides Maricopa appears to have a problem in timely processing their capital cases, yet this change in the rule would most likely result in cases in those counties being delayed for trial. Finally, for the victim's family to wait as long as 2 years from the time the notice of death is filed before going trial seems counter to Arizona's stated public policy of providing the victim with a constitutional right to a "speedy trial or disposition." Az. Const. Art. 2, sec. 2.1(A)(10).