Court of Appeals issues opinion on COVID-19 and Speedy Trials

The Minnesota Court of Appeals issued State of Minnesota v. Donald Anthony Jackson on Monday, November 8, 2021, a case addressing whether, in the context of a speedy trial analysis, the state or the defendant is “responsible” for the delay in bringing a defendant to trial when the delay is solely due to public-safety concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court split the difference, holding that neither party is responsible for the delay. Judge Frisch issued the opinion.

The criminal appeal at issue followed the defendant’s conviction for a felony violation of a domestic abuse no contact order (a DANCO), which alleged that the defendant had violated the order by sending threatening text messages to the protected party. The defendant’s trial attorney demanded a speedy trial, as is the defendant’s right under the Sixth Amendment, but the trial did not occur until 77 days after the speedy trial demand was made—exclusively the result of the delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Typically speaking, a felony speedy trial occurs within 60 days.

In gauging whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial is violated, Minnesota appellate courts apply a four-factor balancing test outlined in the United States Supreme Court’s Barker opinion. The four factors are the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right to a speedy trial, and the prejudice to the defendant. No single factor is dispositive, and each analysis is case-dependent/fact-dependent.

Here, with Jackson, the Court found the delay was negligible given the reason for the delay, and the the reason for the delay was not attributable to either the State or the defendant. The Court also found it important that the context of the defendant’s speedy trial demand made it clear that all parties knew that a safe trial could not occur within the 60-day period because of the pandemic. Lastly, in terms of prejudice to the defendant, Jackson claimed that he suffered anxiety from oppressive pretrial incarceration during the pandemic, which many other incarcerated persons also suffered. The Court, however, did not find the prejudice severe and cited prior case law that held prejudice to a defendant is reduced where the defendant was already in custody for another, unrelated offense.

Ultimately, balancing all four factors, the Court of Appeals held that Jackson’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated.

Appeals and appellate litigation are high stakes. Generally speaking, an individual convicted of a crime has one opportunity to make their case on appeal. Wilson & Clas has significant experience and success in handling criminal appeals to the Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme Court—experience that few firms rival. The firm also handles Title IX appeals, requests for reconsideration and review, expungement appeals, and postconviction relief appeals.