I'm sure the motion for a speedy trial was just a formality by the Defense. It was also presented during the time of the M's incarceration which IMO support their motion for bond in that the M's would not be held in jail for an arbitrary length of time while awaiting trial.
To me, it does not appear that the Defense is contesting these delays. If anything, the D is contradicting itself. If this is a tactic being used by the D (to go along with the State's delays), could it be just be an attempt at a dismissal?
BBM
Attorney for Tammy Moorer files motion for speedy trial in Heather Elvis case
Tammy Moorer's attorney is asking a judge to speed up her murder trial in the Heather Elvis case, saying
increased scrutiny of his client could have a detrimental effect on her defense.
Myrtle Beach attorney Greg McCollum filed a motion for speedy trial Friday afternoon asking the court to set a date for the trial.
Based on the aforementioned authorities and given the
prejudicial effects that Defendant may encounter considering the increased media surrounding Defendants case, Defendant hereby invokes all of her speedy trial rights as guaranteed by both the United States and South Carolina Constitutions, the motion states.
Such request is made in an effort to avoid these
negative effects. Therefore, Defendant that this Court set Defendants case for trial.
[
]
Motion for Speedy Trial PDF - Filed by Greg McCollum - 9/17/14
What is a "Speedy" Trial?
A "speedy" trial basically means that the defendant is tried for the alleged crimes within a reasonable time after being arrested. Although most states have laws that set forth the time in which a trial must take place after charges are filed, often the issue of whether or not a trial is in fact "speedy" enough under the Sixth Amendment comes down to the circumstances of the case itself, and the reasons for any delays.
In the most extreme situations, when a court determines that the delay between arrest and trial was unreasonable and prejudicial to the defendant, the court dismisses the case altogether.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/right-to-a-speedy-jury-trial.html#sthash.85ISPxSg.dpuf
8. Right to a Speedy and Public Trial
Article I, Section 14 of the S.C. Constitution, and the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provide that the accused in
a criminal trial shall have the right to a speedy and public trial. The right to a speedy trial is a right which
can be waived. Waiver of such right is generally inferred where (1) the accused failed to make timely demand that he be either tried or discharged, (2) the court grants a continuance on motion of the accused or with his consent, or (3) the accused voluntarily entered a plea of guilty without raising the question of denial of a speedy trial. Wheeler v. State, 247 S.C. 393, 401, 147 S.E.2d 627, 630 (1966).
The constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial affords protection only against unnecessary or unreasonable delay. State v. Chapman, 289 S.C. 42, 344 S.E.2d 611 (1986). The determination of whether or not an accused has been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial depends on the circumstances of each case. State v. Brazell, 325 S.C. 65, 75, 480 S.E.2d 64,70 (1997). For the defendant to establish the fact that he has been denied a speedy trial, he must demonstrate the delay was attributable to the neglect and willfulness of the State. State v. Dukes, 256 S.C. 218, 222, 182 S.E.2d 286, 288 (1971).
Certain factors which must be considered in determining whether the defendant has been denied a speedy trial are: (1) the length of the delay, (2) the government's reason for the delay, (3) the defendant's assertion of his right to a speedy trial, and (4) prejudice to the defendant. This four part balancing test was adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S.514 (1972). "South Carolina has also adopted this approach to the speedy trial analysis." See Brazell, supra, State v. Smith, 307 S.C. 376, 415 S.E.2d 409 (Ct. App. 1992); State v. Robinson, 335 S.C. 620, 518 S.E.2d 269 (Ct. App. 1999).
In Richmond Newspapers, Inc., v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980), the U.S. Supreme Court determined that, based upon the First Amendment rights of press and speech, the public has a right to attend trials. The court held that while the Constitution provides a defendant with the right to a public trial, there is no absolute right to a private trial. Nevertheless, the defendant may move for closure of the trial. At a hearing on the issue, the defendant must show: (1) that he will be denied a fair trial if the public or press is allowed access to the proceeding and (2) no other method of protecting the defendant's right to a fair trial is available. Persons with a legitimate interest in the proceedings (e.g. representatives of the news media) should be allowed to present reasons why the pretrial proceeding should remain open to the public, and why the defendant's right to a fair trial will not be jeopardized by an open hearing. After hearing the arguments both for and against closure of the proceedings, the judge must determine whether closure of the proceeding is the least drastic means of preserving the defendant's right to a fair trial and must make his findings a part of the record. (See Steinle, et al. v. Lollis, supra. Even in those instances where the prosecutor consents to the closing of the pretrial proceeding, the judge must make an inquiry and determine that no other alternative action will protect the defendant's right.
Possible alternatives to closure which might prove equally effective in protecting the defendant's rights under the particular circumstances might be (1) questioning prospective jurors on their voir dire in order to eliminate those who have prejudged the case, (2) sequestering the jury during the entire trial, (3) sequestering the witnesses, (4) permitting a change of venue, or (5) if appropriate, declaring a mistrial. These are only some of the possible methods of protecting the defendant's rights, without closing the trial to the public.
A combination of these or other appropriate alternatives should assure that the defendant receives a fair trial without the necessity of excluding the public from the trial.
In all cases, it should be kept in mind that public access to judicial proceedings is an important aspect of our system of justice. (See also "Closure of the Preliminary Examination").
http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/summaryCourtBenchBook/HTML/CriminalG.htm
SECTION 14. Trial by jury; witnesses; defense.
The right of trial by jury shall be preserved inviolate. Any person charged with an offense shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; to be fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to be fully heard in his defense by himself or by his counsel or by both. (1970 (56) 2684; 1971 (57) 315.)
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/a01.php
115. CONTINUANCES
(a) Motions. Motions for continuance shall be made in accordance with Rule 110 and shall be filed as soon as the need and grounds for the continuance becomes known to the defense.
(b)Authority to Grant. The chief judge in each circuit shall have exclusive authority to grant continuances of cases scheduled for trial or expected to be called for trial. Continuances for a particular term or portion of a term may be granted by a presiding judge only upon written request of counsel or on the record. Any order granting a continuance shall be in writing, shall be made only upon a showing of good cause, and shall be filed forthwith with the Clerk of Court or the ruling made on the record. A continuance granted by a presiding judge cannot extend beyond the term of court over which the judge is presiding.
(c) Continuance Because of Absence of Witness. No motion for continuance shall be granted on account of the absence of a witness without the oath of the moving party or the partys counsel or agent to the following effect: the testimony of the witness is material to the support of the action or defense of the party moving; the motion is not intended for delay, but is made solely because the party cannot go safely to trial without such testimony; and has made use of due diligence to procure the testimony of the witness or of such other circumstances as will satisfy the court that the motion is not intended for delay.
(1) When a subpoena has been issued, the original shall be produced with proof of service or the reason why not served endorsed thereon or attached thereto; or if lost the same proof shall be offered with additional proof of the loss of the original subpoena.
(2) A party applying for such postponement on account of the absence of a witness shall set forth under oath, in addition to the foregoing requirements, what fact(s) the party believes the witness if present would testify to and the grounds for such belief.
(d) Orders of Protection. Defense counsel seeking protection from appearance in all or part of any term of General Sessions shall confer with the solicitor, provide his or her reason for protection, and request consent. If the solicitor agrees not to call that attorney's case during the period for which the attorney seeks protection, an order is not necessary, but the parties may submit a consent order to the court if desired. If the solicitor objects, the court will conduct a hearing to determine if an order should be issued. After the trial roster has been published in accordance with Rule 123, orders of protection will not be granted. If circumstances change such that protection is unnecessary, defense counsel shall notify the court and the solicitor as soon as practicable.
http://www.sccourts.org/whatsnew/southcarolinacriminalruleswithrule106change.pdf
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_Trial_Clause
