Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Pandemic Justified Trial Delay of More Than a Year
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A man who was arraigned on domestic violence charges on May 13, 2020, with the trial repeatedly postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, is not entitled to a writ barring prosecution after a trial set for Aug. 9, 2021, did not commence, Div. One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal declared yesterday.
Justice Richard D. Huffman authored the opinion denying relief to defendant Ruben Elias, saying:
“There is no question that the realities of the pandemic shutdowns and related limitations have substantially inhibited the ability of the court system to bring criminal cases to trial within normal statutory time frames. Hundreds of in-custody criminal defendants are still awaiting trial. Given the unique and unprecedented circumstances caused by the global public health emergency, courts must exercise their inherent power to manage and prioritize their cases to work through the backlog.”
Discretion Not Abused
He continued:
“The record before us shows the court did just that. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in finding good cause to grant the continuances or in denying Elias’s motion to dismiss.”
Elias argued that his motion to dismiss should have been granted on Aug. 9, 2021 in light of Penal Code §1382(a)(2) which requires a dismissal of felony charges “when a defendant is not brought to trial within 60 days of the defendant’s arraignment.” Huffman pointed out that under emergency orders by the chief justice and the San Diego Superior Court’s presiding judge, the time period for getting to trial had been periodically extended.
“Therefore, the time to bring Elias to trial has not expired,” the justice said.
Federal Constitutional Right
Elias’s right to a speedy trial under the U.S. Constitution’s Sixth Amendment was also not violated, he declared. Although “[d]elays approaching one year after accusation are generally presumptively prejudicial,” he said, the U.S. Supreme Court established in the 1972 case of Barker v. Wingo that consideration must be lent “the peculiar circumstances of the case.”
Huffman noted the peculiar circumstance of the world-wide health emergency.
While factors other than the pandemic played some role in the delays, he found evidence of foot-dragging by the prosecution, alleged by Elias, to be unpersuasive.
The case is Elias v. Superior Court, D079425.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company