Protest as he may, he also KNOWS that the longer the proceedings are delayed, the more things play toward his side. It's not necessarily that defense attorneys are doing wrong - they have a job, and that is to get their client off. He can publicly go on and on about how quickly he wants the trial to happen, and every minute it is delayed, he can still smile inwardly because he knows how to play the "justice delayed is justice denied" card. It's tactics and strategies. And attorneys are taught how to use and take advantage of situations. It's part of their stock and trade. That's the legal business.

What Sheriff Jack Stockton said in the piece is exactly correct.

It might be instructive to do some research and see exactly how many delays have been caused by the State i.e. the prosecutor. And the check to see how many have been caused by defense processes.

The defense also knows perfectly well that he has another trump card to play: "the rush to trial" card. If things move too quickly to suit the defense, then the tactic changes to the prosecutor trying to run a railroading operation.

The prosecutor is screwed on the spit of public opinion (if the defense attorney gets away with it) EITHER way it goes - whether the defendant is brought to trial swiftly or whether there are numerous procedural delays to make sure all i's are dotted and all t's are crossed.

I think in any capital case, it is ultimately in the interest of JUSTICE (notice I specifically did not say either side) if enough time is taken to make sure all procedural and technical aspects are laid out just right

If that is not done, there is a vociferous community willing to crucify a prosecutor for rushing to condemn someone to either death or life without parole. It is simply a fact that sometimes the wheels of justice turn slowly. I prefer slow and deliberate to a headlong rush.

And from personal experience, I can tell you that the RCN reporter's simple comparison to other places doesn't quite tell the whole story. He likes to write things like that, and it stirs people up, so it's good copy. But tain't necessarily all the facts. Facts are that each judicial circuit has its own unique mixture of factors that set the speed for the judicial process in that circuit. There's case mix, number of complicating factors in the cases, how divided on other things all the lawyers are, situations such as we have in which judges are exchanged, etc. You can't just simply gauge one judicial circuit by another. That's significant oversimplification.

RB

Of course no article can contain all the facts so let's see some follow up. Anybody wants to add some "facts" to this story, feel free.

But please don't post innuendo without backing it up. There's enough of that flying around as it is.