New Appellate Division decision regarding drunk driving and the right to a speedy trial
A decision came down from the Appellate Division last week regarding a defendant's right to a speedy trial in a drunk driving or driving while intoxicated (DWI) case in New Jersey. In State v. Tsetsekas, the Appellate Division held that the defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated when the State repeatedly failed to bring him to trial and there was an extensive delay in adjudicating his DWI charge. This is a violation of his due process rights in New Jersey. This extensive delay, almost one-year to prosecute the defendant for drunk driving, was based on the State's inability to provide discovery evidence (a videotape) and the State's failure to subpoena witnesses and prepare for trial. The State received four adjournments for the failure to provide the discovery evidence and at least three more were granted based on the State's witnesses (the State troopers) failure to appear at trial. As a result, the Appellate Division dismissed the charges against the defendant based on a violation of his due process rights and a violation of his right to a speedy trial in New Jersey. For a complete copy of the judicial opinion, see the New Jersey Judiciary website.
The Iler Law Firm currently has an appeal out of Morris County that is strikingly similar to this case. In our case, the Morristown Municipal Court took approximately 405 days to prosecute our client for driving while intoxicated (DWI). The reason for this extensive delay was the State's failure to provide basic discovery evidence which included the certification card of the officer who operated the breathalyzer machine and the videotape evidence of the field sobriety tests. Without the certification card, the breath test readings are inadmissible and the State can only try the case on the physical tests. However, without the videotape, it would also be very difficult for the State to try the case on the physical tests. As a result, the State requested and received a half-dozen adjournments to provide this discovery evidence. In fact, defense counsel requested and received a "try or dismiss" marking on one occasion and the Court failed to dismiss the case on the next listing and granted the State yet another additional adjournment. Thus, this new Appellate Division decision should really help our case and our argument which is scheduled in February before the Appellate Division in Trenton. I will keep you updated as to how the case finally turns out.
