On Point blog, page 1 of 1
SCOW reverses defense win on speedy trial violation, overrules Borhegyi, and holds that 46-month delay did not violate federal constitution
State v. Luis A. Ramirez, 2025 WI 28, 6/27/25, reversing a published decision from COA; case activity
When this case was issued in COA, we got excited and informed our readers that this “big defense win” was an important decision on the speedy trial right. However, SCOW now unanimously reverses in favor of the State.
D4 issues another speedy trial decision recommended for publication, holds that COVID-related delays should not weigh against the state
State v. Cordero D. Coleman, 2023AP2414-CR, 12/27/24, District IV (recommended for publication), case activity
COA holds that a 32-month delay in trying Coleman did not violate his constitutional right to a speedy trial where the COVID-19 pandemic was the primary cause of the delay. In doing so, COA identifies a new category of reasons for state-attributed delay, “which encompasses those delays that are caused by a reasonable government response to a legitimate public emergency” and holds such delays should not be weighed against the state. (¶56).
In big defense win, COA holds that 46 month delay was a violation of defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial
State v. Luis A. Ramirez, 2022AP959-CR, 4/25/24, District IV (recommended for publication); petition for review granted 10/7/24, reversed 6/27/25 case activity
In a must-read defense win, COA holds that the State’s “cavalier disregard” for Ramirez’s speedy trial rights entitle him to dismissal of the underlying complaint.
Purported lack of prejudice dooms constitutional speedy trial claim
State v. Ned Guerra, 2022AP2098-CR, 7/19/23, District 2 (1-judge decision; not eligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Twenty-0ne months passed between the filing of the criminal complaint and Guerra’s trial. The delay was caused by a state’s witness’ temporary unavailability and the circuit court’s COVID-based backlog of higher-priority trials. While Guerra clearly asserted his right to a speedy trial, the court affirms the circuit court’s denial of Guerra’s motion to dismiss because “there is no evidence that Guerra was prejudiced by the delay.” Opinion, ¶23.