BMX Bandit said:
Darth Crypto may have aced his LSAT, but he clearly never learned criminal law. there is no speedy trial argument under US constitution. that clock only starts once the person is indicted or arrested ("accused")
statute of limitations and due process are the most relevant affirmative defenses that will be raised.
The take is currently the interpretation of when the clock for "speedy trial" begins tolling, but that is an interpretation, subject to debate and challenge, and not a sure thing that can never be challenged.
The interpretation relies on statute of limitations and due process to be reasonable and followed. In a case where those things are disregarded, then he has indeed lost his right to a speedy trial.
I understand his take may even have a different rationale than mine but neither are unreasonable.
Would be nice if those with legal background gave recognition to the actual words of the Constitution, the meaning behind those words, and the absolute fact that mere men (and women) who have interpreted those things are subject to error or revision of thought.