Show Less
You do not have access to this content

Advanced Introduction to U.S. Criminal Procedure

Christopher Slobogin

In this Advanced Introduction, Christopher Slobogin covers every significant aspect of U.S. criminal procedure. Focusing on Supreme Court cases and the most important statutory rules that provide the framework for the criminal justice system, he illuminates the nuances of American criminal procedure doctrine and offers factual examples of how it is applied. Chapters cover police practices such as search and seizure, interrogation, and identification procedures, as well as the pretrial, trial and post-conviction process.
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

The right to a speedy, public jury trial

Christopher Slobogin


The idealized image of the American criminal process is a trial in which a group of laypeople decide whether the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As the last chapter made clear, however, trial occurs in less than 10 percent of all cases. Instead, the parties usually try to avoid trial, through negotiations that provide defendants with a lesser punishment than would be imposed upon conviction at trial and that allow the prosecution to save its resources for those cases that it cannot or will not resolve through plea bargaining.

When trial does occur, the Sixth Amendment states that the “accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury …; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” The rights to speedy, public trial by an impartial jury are the subject of this chapter. The rights to confrontation, compulsory process, and counsel are the subject of the next.

The Supreme Court first articulated the interests protected by the speedy trial right in United States v. Ewell,1 which noted that a prompt trial prevents undue incarceration, reduces the anxiety accompanying public accusation, and minimizes impairment of the defendant’s case due to delay. In Barker v. Wingo,2 the Court elaborated that delay in adjudicating criminal charges disrupts the defendant’s family life and employment, drains resources, and prolongs stigmatization; if the...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.