Im Gipper said:
Taking those enumerated points alone, it certainly would be a misrepresentation. However, the body of the motion sets forth the law and explains what the cases say.
For example, on the first item regarding 10 days notice, the remedy is to ask for a continuance of the trial. The defendant cannot say "no continuance" and still have that information excluded.
I give it 2 Pinocchios.
Yeah. I've read some of the cited cases (most of them aren't long) and Willis is
correctly saying that when the defendant requests a speedy trial, the deadlines are essentially meaningless and its up to the defense to argue another reason why they need more time or evidence should be excluded.
For example, in the first case, the defendant got discovery material 6 days before trial and Georgia's top court said that's OK given the content and context of the material.
In the last case cited, Georgia's top court said "noncompliance with Rule 32.1 must be judged by the circumstances of each case.
Here, the trial court was attempting to comply with the demand for trial, and the only way to do so was by deviating from the notice requirement of USCR 32.1. In these circumstances, we cannot say that the trial court clearly erred in finding a waiver of the demand."
Basically, if you want a speedy trial, the court might need to and is allowed to deviate from the statutory deadlines in order to meet the demand.