Justice as A Function of Character – the Brillon Case
The Vermont Supreme Court recently threw out the conviction of Michael Brillon (State v. Brillon) producing howls of outrage from both the governor and various members of the legislature. Brillon had been in jail nearly 3 years without trial, which the court found to be a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Both the state and federal constitutions provide for “speedy [and] public trials” and, while the definition of “speedy” is subject to interpretation, the federal Speedy Trial Act specifies 70 days following indictment with several exceptions. (A manual for U.S. attorneys discusses the matter in some detail here.)
The obvious purpose of the right is to prevent the state from locking up its citizens for an extended period of time (whether from neglect or malice) while simultaneously denying any forum to prove their innocence. The court cannot micromanage the affairs of the legislative and executive branches, and the only tool available to correct a gross abuse of due process is to vacate the conviction. As the court majority succinctly put it: “defendant’s trial was delayed for several months, even years, because of the failure of several assigned counsel to do anything to move his case forward.”
The dissent, written by Justice Burgess (Reiber, CJ concurring), advocates the proposition that the delays were defendant’s fault for “monkey wrenching” the system by not agreeing to go to trial with counsel that was admittedly unprepared. However, the real reason for the dissent is clear enough from the opening sentence: “Today the majority frees a convicted woman beater and habitual offender,…” While the defendant’s character could have nothing to do with a speedy trial issue, apparently it figured into the opinions of Justices Burgess and Reiber or they would not have included the language in the dissent. Basic rights apply to everyone or no one. If a litigant needs to pass a court-imposed character test to qualify for these rights, they aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.
Comment from michele Tobin
Date: April 23, 2008, 8:50 am
Today the majority frees a convicted woman beater and habitual offender,
This is a bunch of bull. This woman lied on the stand( her own mother and co-worker agreed!) and struck Mr. Brillon with a bat frist! who is the abuser?
this man had offences inhanced that he was not convicted of in order to go for habitual. I urge people to read this case, its not what it seems!