Ahmaud Arbery update

[NewOrleans]

Prepare to be enraged.

www.firstcoastnews.com/mobile/article/news/crime/3-charged-in-ahmaud-arbery-death-due-in-court/77-08ffbbc4-0bec-4d71-9d4a-45818627f37c

Travis McMichael, Greg McMichael and William “Roddie” Bryan, all facing felony murder charges in Arbery’s death, will appear virtually before a judge in May to discuss several motions filed by defense attorneys.

Among the motions to be discussed include calls to disqualify the prosecutor and introducing evidence that defense attorneys say shows Arbery used jogging as a cover to commit crimes. Family and friends say Arbery often jogged as a form of therapy.

Defense attorneys want to exclude all jail calls from trial—calls in which Greg McMichael called the shooting a "good deed"—and produce all potentially exculpatory evidence in the case.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Can we please not shit all over defense attorneys for having the audacity to do their jobs? I know we all know they're guilty of murder, but they still deserve competent and rigorous defense.

*steps off soapbox*

[NewOrleans]

Apr 21, 2021 18:37:34 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Can we please not shit all over defense attorneys for having the audacity to do their jobs? I know we all know they're guilty of murder, but they still deserve competent and rigorous defense.

*steps off soapbox*

I’m not shitting on anyone and I am allowed to feel angry that the strategy is continually to put the dead person on trial instead.  I don’t feel that’s a defense; I feel it’s slander. Also, everyone should feel enraged reading there the killer saying it was a “good deed.”

[seeyalater52]

Apr 21, 2021 20:07:33 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Apr 21, 2021 18:37:34 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Can we please not shit all over defense attorneys for having the audacity to do their jobs? I know we all know they're guilty of murder, but they still deserve competent and rigorous defense.

*steps off soapbox*

I’m not shitting on anyone and I am allowed to feel angry that the strategy is continually to put the dead person on trial instead.  I don’t feel that’s a defense; I feel it’s slander. Also, everyone should feel enraged reading there the killer saying it was a “good deed.”

I agree. I think defense strategy is a bit more nuanced than just saying that anything goes in order to defend your client. Every person deserves a rigorous defense, but there are some lines of defense that play into bias in a way that is disturbing and problematic.

Not a great analogy, but hopefully people wouldn’t defend the gay or trans panic defense (banned in some states now) that a killer murdered someone in righteous anger after discovering that they are gay or trans. There’s a reason it is banned - that defense perpetuates a harm against a marginalized group.

It’s a worthy discussion in my mind where to draw these lines. I don’t think it should just be summarily dismissed.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Apr 21, 2021 20:07:33 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Apr 21, 2021 18:37:34 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Can we please not shit all over defense attorneys for having the audacity to do their jobs? I know we all know they're guilty of murder, but they still deserve competent and rigorous defense.

*steps off soapbox*

I’m not shitting on anyone and I am allowed to feel angry that the strategy is continually to put the dead person on trial instead.  I don’t feel that’s a defense; I feel it’s slander. Also, everyone should feel enraged reading there the killer saying it was a “good deed.”

Maybe that's not your intent, and I know this issue is personal to me, but it sounds like you're saying we should be enraged over the defense attorney's motions.

Yes, if one of the defendants said that, it's awful... Really, really awful. Which is why the defense attorney moved to keep it out.

This is a large part of what defense attorneys do. They try to keep the stuff that's bad for their client out of court. Most of the time it doesn't work, but not making the motions gives defendants grounds for appeal.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Apr 21, 2021 20:12:56 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

Apr 21, 2021 20:07:33 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

I’m not shitting on anyone and I am allowed to feel angry that the strategy is continually to put the dead person on trial instead.  I don’t feel that’s a defense; I feel it’s slander. Also, everyone should feel enraged reading there the killer saying it was a “good deed.”

I agree. I think defense strategy is a bit more nuanced than just saying that anything goes in order to defend your client. Every person deserves a rigorous defense, but there are some lines of defense that play into bias in a way that is disturbing and problematic.

Not a great analogy, but hopefully people wouldn’t defend the gay or trans panic defense (banned in some states now) that a killer murdered someone in righteous anger after discovering that they are gay or trans. There’s a reason it is banned - that defense perpetuates a harm against a marginalized group.

It’s a worthy discussion in my mind where to draw these lines. I don’t think it should just be summarily dismissed.

I do agree with you, but I don't think anything highlighted by this article comes within a mile of that line.

[MixedBerryJam]

Apr 21, 2021 20:26:28 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Apr 21, 2021 20:07:33 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

I’m not shitting on anyone and I am allowed to feel angry that the strategy is continually to put the dead person on trial instead.  I don’t feel that’s a defense; I feel it’s slander. Also, everyone should feel enraged reading there the killer saying it was a “good deed.”

Maybe that's not your intent, and I know this issue is personal to me, but it sounds like you're saying we should be enraged over the defense attorney's motions.

Yes, if one of the defendants said that, it's awful... Really, really awful. Which is why the defense attorney moved to keep it out.

This is a large part of what defense attorneys do. They try to keep the stuff that's bad for their client out of court. Most of the time it doesn't work, but not making the motions gives defendants grounds for appeal.

Let me start by saying I'm not exactly "enraged" bc I absolutely understand that a criminal defendant deserves all their constitutional protections. We all do.  So while I understand the motions, I sure as heck don't like the tactics. It sounds like this is becoming the "Arbery trial" just like some people have referred to the Chauvin trial improperly.

[aliciabella]

Apr 21, 2021 20:07:33 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Apr 21, 2021 18:37:34 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Can we please not shit all over defense attorneys for having the audacity to do their jobs? I know we all know they're guilty of murder, but they still deserve competent and rigorous defense.

*steps off soapbox*

I’m not shitting on anyone and I am allowed to feel angry that the strategy is continually to put the dead person on trial instead.  I don’t feel that’s a defense; I feel it’s slander. Also, everyone should feel enraged reading there the killer saying it was a “good deed.”

That is what a defense is and it isn't slander, but you do have a right to feel how you feel. But please recognize that the majority of defendants are BLACK and poor and they also deserve to have a defense against charges. You are looking at a very rare event; whites cops arrested. Most of the time they look like us and we support the defense and shit on the DA.

This has less to do with the defense and more with who are being defended and why they are being defended.

[NewOrleans]

Apr 21, 2021 20:26:28 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Apr 21, 2021 20:07:33 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

I’m not shitting on anyone and I am allowed to feel angry that the strategy is continually to put the dead person on trial instead.  I don’t feel that’s a defense; I feel it’s slander. Also, everyone should feel enraged reading there the killer saying it was a “good deed.”

Maybe that's not your intent, and I know this issue is personal to me, but it sounds like you're saying we should be enraged over the defense attorney's motions.

Yes, if one of the defendants said that, it's awful... Really, really awful. Which is why the defense attorney moved to keep it out.

This is a large part of what defense attorneys do. They try to keep the stuff that's bad for their client out of court. Most of the time it doesn't work, but not making the motions gives defendants grounds for appeal.

 I am angry over the defense motions. Reasonable minds can disagree. Yet, I do know what it’s like to be in a highly scrutinized profession that people don’t generally understand, so I can empathize with your position even if I don’t agree.  

[aliciabella]

Apr 21, 2021 20:37:12 GMT -5 MixedBerryJam said:

Apr 21, 2021 20:26:28 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Maybe that's not your intent, and I know this issue is personal to me, but it sounds like you're saying we should be enraged over the defense attorney's motions.

Yes, if one of the defendants said that, it's awful... Really, really awful. Which is why the defense attorney moved to keep it out.

This is a large part of what defense attorneys do. They try to keep the stuff that's bad for their client out of court. Most of the time it doesn't work, but not making the motions gives defendants grounds for appeal.

Let me start by saying I'm not exactly "enraged" bc I absolutely understand that a criminal defendant deserves all their constitutional protections. We all do.  So while I understand the motions, I sure as heck don't like the tactics. It sounds like this is becoming the "Arbery trial" just like some people have referred to the Chauvin trial improperly.

But, that is usually how it works, lol. You don't have to like it but how is this different than defending my black client for assaulting an officer and bringing up the cops past behavior? Past racial Facebook posts? Past disciplinary reports? Etc.

In 9.5/10 times the defendant is going to be a POC and poor and these tactics work in the favor of poc. But, there is this .5 percent, like these cases, which take away from the understanding of how important defense attorneys are to the system and changing any rules/laws for the .5 percent would only hurt those we are trying to help.

And, I HATE YOU ALL TOO!!!!! lol.

[MixedBerryJam]

Apr 21, 2021 20:56:25 GMT -5 aliciabella said:

Apr 21, 2021 20:37:12 GMT -5 MixedBerryJam said:

Let me start by saying I'm not exactly "enraged" bc I absolutely understand that a criminal defendant deserves all their constitutional protections. We all do.  So while I understand the motions, I sure as heck don't like the tactics. It sounds like this is becoming the "Arbery trial" just like some people have referred to the Chauvin trial improperly.

But, that is usually how it works, lol. You don't have to like it but how is this different than defending my black client for assaulting an officer and bringing up the cops past behavior? Past racial Facebook posts? Past disciplinary reports? Etc.

In 9.5/10 times the defendant is going to be a POC and poor and these tactics work in the favor of poc. But, there is this .5 percent, like these cases, which take away from the understanding of how important defense attorneys are to the system and changing any rules/laws for the .5 percent would only hurt those we are trying to help.

And, I HATE YOU ALL TOO!!!!! lol.u

Lol, sorry.  How about this: I can respect it, but I don't have to like it! 

And seriously, thank you for the work you do. I have no quarrel with anyone upholding the Constituion.

Bu also, can you explain why Chauvin's history of previous complaints of excessive force weren't allowed? While he hadn't been convicted of anything for as a result of those complaints, that seems like a significant pattern that lent further credibility to the body of evidence. If I understand correctly HE could have been asked about it directly but otherwise it was off limits.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Apr 21, 2021 21:01:47 GMT -5 MixedBerryJam said:

Apr 21, 2021 20:56:25 GMT -5 aliciabella said:

But, that is usually how it works, lol. You don't have to like it but how is this different than defending my black client for assaulting an officer and bringing up the cops past behavior? Past racial Facebook posts? Past disciplinary reports? Etc.

In 9.5/10 times the defendant is going to be a POC and poor and these tactics work in the favor of poc. But, there is this .5 percent, like these cases, which take away from the understanding of how important defense attorneys are to the system and changing any rules/laws for the .5 percent would only hurt those we are trying to help.

And, I HATE YOU ALL TOO!!!!! lol.u

Lol, sorry.  How about this: I can respect it, but I don't have to like it! 

And seriously, thank you for the work you do. I have no quarrel with anyone upholding the Constituion.

Bu also, can you explain why Chauvin's history of previous complaints of excessive force weren't allowed? While he hadn't been convicted of anything for as a result of those complaints, that seems like a significant pattern that lent further credibility to the body of evidence. If I understand correctly HE could have been asked about it directly but otherwise it was off limits.

They were allowed to bring up 2 incidents (I'm not sure if it was a specific 2 or if they were limited to 2). I think they would've brought them up if Chauvin testified to rebut what I presume would've been. "I'm such a great cop" testimony. They probably could've gotten them via the Chief if they felt necessary to introduce that evidence.

[aliciabella]

Apr 21, 2021 21:01:47 GMT -5 MixedBerryJam said:

Apr 21, 2021 20:56:25 GMT -5 aliciabella said:

But, that is usually how it works, lol. You don't have to like it but how is this different than defending my black client for assaulting an officer and bringing up the cops past behavior? Past racial Facebook posts? Past disciplinary reports? Etc.

In 9.5/10 times the defendant is going to be a POC and poor and these tactics work in the favor of poc. But, there is this .5 percent, like these cases, which take away from the understanding of how important defense attorneys are to the system and changing any rules/laws for the .5 percent would only hurt those we are trying to help.

And, I HATE YOU ALL TOO!!!!! lol.u

Lol, sorry.  How about this: I can respect it, but I don't have to like it! 

And seriously, thank you for the work you do. I have no quarrel with anyone upholding the Constituion.

Bu also, can you explain why Chauvin's history of previous complaints of excessive force weren't allowed? While he hadn't been convicted of anything for as a result of those complaints, that seems like a significant pattern that lent further credibility to the body of evidence. If I understand correctly HE could have been asked about it directly but otherwise it was off limits.

Fair, very fair! I hope that didn't come off harshly because I didn't mean for it to be

A couple of reasons. 1- he probably was never convicted criminally for any prior acts. You can be charged but if not convicted it typically can't be used against you. There are rare exceptions but this wouldn't be it.

2- Because he didn't testify however even if he did his prior "bad acts" would have been argued either pre-trial or in the judge's chambers without the jury present. Prior acts typically need to be similar to his current charges or typically used as a rebuttal by the DA for something that was brought up by the defense or vice versa for them opening the door. For example, that can include a character defense witness testifying that the defendant has a moral standing, or trustworthiness when the defendant has prior convictions for thefts. At that point the door is open and the DA may be able to bring in their prior record. These change jurisdiction to jurisdiction but are fairly similar. For a judge to allow it, the evidence needs to be more probative than prejudicial. Since most of the time their prior record has no bearing on the current case and facts brought forward, it is prejudicial.

It CAN and most often it used for sentencing purpose as an aggravating factor.

[basilosaurus]

Apr 21, 2021 18:37:34 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Can we please not shit all over defense attorneys for having the audacity to do their jobs? I know we all know they're guilty of murder, but they still deserve competent and rigorous defense.

*steps off soapbox*

My fil was a public defender for decades. Poor guy literally slept in his office which was a single wide because he had no money for a home. Had to sleep with a weapon in near reach due to numerous death threats. I'm not shitting on people doing their jobs, and every one deserves defense even when guilty as sin. I still have a right to be angry, and my fil would be first to agree with me. We can hold multiple things in our brains at the same time.

[underwaterrhymes]

I am grateful for defense attorneys.

But I think one can appreciate the general work they do and still be outraged at the narrative that is often used to minimize the value of Black lives after they have been murdered. The lawyers may be doing their job to save their clients, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are, in essence, putting Arbery - a man who was hunted down and lynched - on trial. I would like to hug many public defenders. I want to kick these particular ones in the shins.

[mrshandy]

underwaterrhymes, TBF these are definitely not public defenders. They are well paid defense attorneys. From what I've heard with good reputations.

If anyone really wants to deep dive into this trial, I recommend the Breakdown Podcast. They've been breaking down every development and motion in this trial.

I doubt most of the prior behavior will get in because the defendants were not aware of it at the time and therefor their actions were not influenced by it. They are also trying to get the mental health issues in there. That is more up in the air.

All of this is being hashed out prior to trial so they won't be able to introduce this stuff at trial if the judge rules against them.

[redheadbaker]

Apr 21, 2021 20:28:10 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Apr 21, 2021 20:12:56 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

I agree. I think defense strategy is a bit more nuanced than just saying that anything goes in order to defend your client. Every person deserves a rigorous defense, but there are some lines of defense that play into bias in a way that is disturbing and problematic.

Not a great analogy, but hopefully people wouldn’t defend the gay or trans panic defense (banned in some states now) that a killer murdered someone in righteous anger after discovering that they are gay or trans. There’s a reason it is banned - that defense perpetuates a harm against a marginalized group.

It’s a worthy discussion in my mind where to draw these lines. I don’t think it should just be summarily dismissed.

I do agree with you, but I don't think anything highlighted by this article comes within a mile of that line.

Claiming Arbery used jogging as a cover to commit crimes doens't come within a mile of that line? 

[StrawberryBlondie]

Apr 22, 2021 8:17:25 GMT -5 mrshandy said:

All of this is being hashed out prior to trial so they won't be able to introduce this stuff at trial if the judge rules against them.

This is super important. These are just pre-trial motions. Yes, they're important, but they're not arguments being presented to a jury. Basically, they're just doing what every single defense attorney (even the most mediocre) would do - they're arguing that they should be able to introduce some potentially exculpatory/mitigating evidence (however bad/weak it might be) and keep out some potentially inculpatory evidence.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Apr 22, 2021 9:48:23 GMT -5 redheadbaker said:

Apr 21, 2021 20:28:10 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

I do agree with you, but I don't think anything highlighted by this article comes within a mile of that line.

Claiming Arbery used jogging as a cover to commit crimes doens't come within a mile of that line? 

If their motion is granted and that's the defense, maybe.

That's not what they're doing now though. And I'd bet the motion will be denied. Remember - they're just asking to be able to introduce evidence of that nature. They're not actually doing it at this stage. And even if their motion is granted, that doesn't mean that's something they'll even bring up at trial.

For example, in Derick Chauvin's trial, the prosecution was allowed to present evidence of 2 prior misconduct complaints. They didn't do it even though the judge would've allowed it.

[aliciabella]

Apr 21, 2021 21:34:50 GMT -5 mofongo said:

I have a semi related question. Why was the Chauvin trial so fast? When will this one start?

You mean in terms of the length of the trial trial? The trial wasn't short. A week or two is normal for murder cases.

In terms of when the trial will start, it is usually around the 1 year mark- at least in my experience. There is a lot of work to do on both ends and DNA, lab testing, etc can take months for results but we also need to ensure it falls within their right to a fast and speedy trial.

[downtoearth]

I agree that the defense will have to have some strategy, and I may not agree with it, but everyone has to have a fair trial to be convicted. I will say that if the defense in a trial i was a juror on was saying that running and potentially running as a therapy was being used to cover up crimes, I'd have a really hard time believing that. It seems like quite the stretch. Most reasonable people know that exercise and working out to get out tension or emotions is normal, but jogging as a cover for criminal behavior is a bit laughable... running from a crime scene is soooo different than jogging.

[af1212]

Apr 22, 2021 15:07:16 GMT -5 mofongo said:

Apr 22, 2021 11:20:39 GMT -5 aliciabella said:

You mean in terms of the length of the trial trial? The trial wasn't short. A week or two is normal for murder cases.

In terms of when the trial will start, it is usually around the 1 year mark- at least in my experience. There is a lot of work to do on both ends and DNA, lab testing, etc can take months for results but we also need to ensure it falls within their right to a fast and speedy trial.

Thanks! I meant time from charges to trial.

Dumb question but why do they need dna testing? Like there is a video - what would the dna help with?

And to her point about the length - Ahmaud Arbery was killed in February of 2020 and George Floyd May. So why is his done and Ahmaud not started yet.is there no standardized timeline for these things?

[NewOrleans]

Apr 22, 2021 18:06:06 GMT -5 af1212 said:

Apr 22, 2021 15:07:16 GMT -5 mofongo said:

Thanks! I meant time from charges to trial.

Dumb question but why do they need dna testing? Like there is a video - what would the dna help with?

And to her point about the length - Ahmaud Arbery was killed in February of 2020 and George Floyd May. So why is his done and Ahmaud not started yet.is there no standardized timeline for these things?

it was not even investigated right away and they weren’t arrested for 2.5 months after they killed him 

[NewOrleans]

Apr 21, 2021 20:42:59 GMT -5 aliciabella said:

Apr 21, 2021 20:07:33 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

I’m not shitting on anyone and I am allowed to feel angry that the strategy is continually to put the dead person on trial instead.  I don’t feel that’s a defense; I feel it’s slander. Also, everyone should feel enraged reading there the killer saying it was a “good deed.”

That is what a defense is and it isn't slander, but you do have a right to feel how you feel. But please recognize that the majority of defendants are BLACK and poor and they also deserve to have a defense against charges. You are looking at a very rare event; whites cops arrested. Most of the time they look like us and we support the defense and shit on the DA.

This has less to do with the defense and more with who are being defended and why they are being defended.

Your last line is at the heart of it all.  

[af1212]

Apr 22, 2021 18:13:54 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Apr 22, 2021 18:06:06 GMT -5 af1212 said:

Dumb question but why do they need dna testing? Like there is a video - what would the dna help with?

And to her point about the length - Ahmaud Arbery was killed in February of 2020 and George Floyd May. So why is his done and Ahmaud not started yet.is there no standardized timeline for these things?

it was not even investigated right away and they weren’t arrested for 2.5 months after they killed him 

Ok. That makes sense I guess I assumed there was some kind of timeline. Like in a @

School for instance from the time of request you have xx days to perform an evaluation, then xx days to report the findings, etc. I just assumed there was something similar.

[thedutchgirl]

Apr 22, 2021 18:06:06 GMT -5 af1212 said:

Apr 22, 2021 15:07:16 GMT -5 mofongo said:

Thanks! I meant time from charges to trial.

Dumb question but why do they need dna testing? Like there is a video - what would the dna help with?

And to her point about the length - Ahmaud Arbery was killed in February of 2020 and George Floyd May. So why is his done and Ahmaud not started yet.is there no standardized timeline for these things?

Both are state prosecutions, and the timelines differ in every state. Particularly in COVID. MN is having basically no in-person jury trials during COVID. But Chauvin's was prioritized, which the defense apparently agreed with. I don't know what's happening in GA. But time to trial in criminal cases varies wildly from state to state.

ETA: There are some federal constitutional rights to a speedy trial, but defendants usually waive those rights if they are out on bond/bail. Some states have timelines for appellate decisions, but criminal prosecutions don't have strict timelines unless defendants want them, and they generally don't. (And nothing is written into statute--it is all based on the constitutional right to a speedy trial.)

[mrshandy]

As aliciabella, the killing was not investigated as a killing for 2.5 months which is a whole other injustice and frankly disgusting. The family filed a lawsuit against the attorney general recently. I hope they take them to the cleaners.

www.npr.org/2021/02/23/970598539/mother-of-ahmaud-arbery-files-civil-lawsuit-on-anniversary-of-sons-death

As far as the timeline of the trial, they discuss on the podcast that the court system was really backed up because of COVID. Jury trials have just started back in the last few months.

[ChillyMcFreeze]

Apr 23, 2021 0:25:42 GMT -5 thedutchgirl said:

Apr 22, 2021 18:06:06 GMT -5 af1212 said:

Dumb question but why do they need dna testing? Like there is a video - what would the dna help with?

And to her point about the length - Ahmaud Arbery was killed in February of 2020 and George Floyd May. So why is his done and Ahmaud not started yet.is there no standardized timeline for these things?

Both are state prosecutions, and the timelines differ in every state. Particularly in COVID. MN is having basically no in-person jury trials during COVID. But Chauvin's was prioritized, which the defense apparently agreed with. I don't know what's happening in GA. But time to trial in criminal cases varies wildly from state to state.

ETA: There are some federal constitutional rights to a speedy trial, but defendants usually waive those rights if they are out on bond/bail. Some states have timelines for appellate decisions, but criminal prosecutions don't have strict timelines unless defendants want them, and they generally don't. (And nothing is written into statute--it is all based on the constitutional right to a speedy trial.)

Jury trials only resumed in GA a few weeks ago. As someone pointed out, Arbery's killers weren't even arrested until May of last year.

[aliciabella]

Apr 22, 2021 18:15:30 GMT -5 af1212 said:

Apr 22, 2021 18:13:54 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

it was not even investigated right away and they weren’t arrested for 2.5 months after they killed him 

Ok. That makes sense I guess I assumed there was some kind of timeline. Like in a @

School for instance from the time of request you have xx days to perform an evaluation, then xx days to report the findings, etc. I just assumed there was something similar.

There are legal timelines to ensure their right to a speedy trial. With larger cases, such as murder, the defendant will usually waive their right which is a rule 600 issue because of the amount of evidence and the time a defense needs to do what they need to do.

In most none murder cases, they are much faster especially if the defendant is incarcerated. Now, if our client is looking at a lot of time anyways, them remaining in jail can sometimes work in their favor but it is super dependant on the case and defendant.

[af1212]

Apr 26, 2021 15:01:47 GMT -5 aliciabella said:

Apr 22, 2021 18:15:30 GMT -5 af1212 said:

Ok. That makes sense I guess I assumed there was some kind of timeline. Like in a @

School for instance from the time of request you have xx days to perform an evaluation, then xx days to report the findings, etc. I just assumed there was something similar.

There are legal timelines to ensure their right to a speedy trial. With larger cases, such as murder, the defendant will usually waive their right which is a rule 600 issue because of the amount of evidence and the time a defense needs to do what they need to do.

In most none murder cases, they are much faster especially if the defendant is incarcerated. Now, if our client is looking at a lot of time anyways, them remaining in jail can sometimes work in their favor but it is super dependant on the case and defendant.

Thank you for explaining. Most of my legal knowledge comes from Elle Woods. I have “mens rea” down but the other stuff is over my head.