Speedy Trial versus long and drawn out Trial?

[Tasha]

Charlie Ely, an 18 year old got a Speedy Trial for her role in the death of a 14 year old Boy. Charlie saw the 14 year old boy being Murdered by his slightly older Teenage "Friends," and did nothing to stop the Murder, was so shocked, she just went back to her room.

In her interrogation, she was asked if she knew the 14 year old boy would be killed when he went to the place she was renting. She said,"Yes," but looked and sounded EXHAUSTED out of her mind like she didn't even KNOW fully what the question was.

She probably thought the question is was something like,"Did you witness the 14 year old Boy being Murdered?" which is different than being asked if you knew he was going to be killed when he came to the place you were renting.

Charlie had a SPEEDY Trial and was sentenced to more time behind bars when she was technically a WITNESS than the slightly older Teenagers who Murdered the 14 year old, most likely because she was the only legal adult and the Murderers were still Minors(They were about 15 and 16.

Posters watching the Charlie Ely Case pointed out that Charlie getting a SPEEDY Trial when emotions were running high hurt her case and a long drawn out Trial would have helped her out since emotions would have settled down drastically after say three years and she most likely wouldn't have gotten MORE time as a WITNESS than the MURDERERS.

Here is my personal theory. If you're INNOCENT, like you weren't even in the same TOWN when the crimes happened, you want a SPEEDY Trial(A Woman was accused of robbing a house in say Miami Florida, when she was actually at a Cousin's party in say West Palm Beach Florida , roughly two hours away and she had plenty of evidence stating she was at the Cousin's party roughly two hours away from the robbed house at the time. She took a speedy Trial and was acquitted.

If you're GUILTY in any type of way, even just being a WITNESS who was so shocked you didn't stop the crime like what happened with Charlie, you want a long and drawn out Trial. Key Witnesses's memories fad and become unreliable, Key Witnesses move away and have no plans or means to visit where the Trial is taking place, you have more time to get experienced Lawyers who can poke holes in the case in your favor, etc.

So Speedy Trial for innocent, long, drawn out Trial for guilty.

[MisterV]

The state hates it when people insist on having a speedy trial as it requires that the cops and prosecutor immediately prepare for trial.

I makes sense to request it in certain circumstances, especially if the witnesses are sketchy and likely hard to find to testify, or if there is complicated forensic evidence.

[Tasha]

The state hates it when people insist on having a speedy trial as it requires that the cops and prosecutor immediately prepare for trial.

I makes sense to request it in certain circumstances, especially if the witnesses are sketchy and likely hard to find to testify, or if there is complicated forensic evidence.

Or the Prosecutor is actually the Perpetrator and set the Innocent Defendant up as the Criminal.

[DGenBen]

The state hates it when people insist on having a speedy trial as it requires that the cops and prosecutor immediately prepare for trial.

I makes sense to request it in certain circumstances, especially if the witnesses are sketchy and likely hard to find to testify, or if there is complicated forensic evidence.

Or the Prosecutor is actually the Perpetrator and set the Innocent Defendant up as the Criminal.

But what if the judge is the actual Perpetrator and set up the Prosecutor to look like the Prosecutor is actually the Perpetrator and set the Innocent Defendant up as the Criminal?

[MisterV]

But what if the judge is the actual Perpetrator and set up the Prosecutor to look like the Prosecutor is actually the Perpetrator and set the Innocent Defendant up as the Criminal?

Say what?

The prosecutor is the perpetrator and the innocent defendant is the criminal?

Oh wait...you're talking about Karen's fictional tale of hand shaking and chilling: I guess anything can happen there.

[Tasha]

But what if the judge is the actual Perpetrator and set up the Prosecutor to look like the Prosecutor is actually the Perpetrator and set the Innocent Defendant up as the Criminal?

Say what?

The prosecutor is the perpetrator and the innocent defendant is the criminal?

Oh wait...you're talking about Karen's fictional tale of hand shaking and chilling: I guess anything can happen there.

I was referring to TV Shows where the Prosecutor turns out to be the Criminal who set up the Innocent Defendant. I could see that happening in real life too.

[MisterV]

That's not what I was talking about.

My post pointed out that DGenBen hypothesized dual felons, when only one exists.

He said the prosecutor is the perpetrator and the innocent defendant is the criminal: in fact, perpetrator and criminal are one in the same.

There can be only one, not two: I guess he was confused...unless we're traipsing around your fictional land of time travel, doppelgangers and scrumptious DQ strawberry blizzards where anything goes.