You have just blocked it from happening. You say it is because there was no "speedy trial," but you allowed the appointment of a defense attorney to drag on for weeks. Then you allowed a sitting justice to represent the defendant! Then you demanded justification for the dismissal of patrial jurors, contrary to convention. In no other court is a defendant allowed to just ignore the charges against him, then cite the resultant delay as a reason the case should be dismissed!
I am remiss to get involved here, but if I may be so bold as to interject: it was I who urged my fellow justices that the defendant's constitutional rights would be violated if we accepted this case, not windjammer, and he was obviously not the only justice who agreed with me. This constitutional protection exists regardless of what happened in the previous attempt at this trial.
The court unanimously agreed that Justice PiT would serve as court-appointed attorney for the defendant after we tried and failed to find others who could fill the role. Most of the early delay was caused by the court's inability to locate anyone willing and able to represent the defendant, not by anything the defendant himself did or didn't do (and trust me, we tried!). The unorthodox choice of defense attorney was necessary to preserve the defendant's right to a speedy trial, specifically to prevent the outcome that has now occurred.
The presence of the defendant was ultimately not relevant to the conduct of the case - had he not appeared, the case would have continued regardless, only with Justice PiT representing him
in absentia.
The only difference that could have reasonably sped up the first portion of the trial would have been if the defendant had selected his own attorney. This however simply cannot be a requirement or expectation we can place on criminal defendants, as the Atlasian Constitution provides all defendants with the right to an attorney, regardless of their ability or willingness to retain an attorney's services of their own initiative. These Constitutional protections are essential and should not be abrogated.
To the best of my knowledge there currently
is no accepted convention pertaining to the conduct of
voir dire in Atlasia? If one exists, and the prosecution believed the court was not properly adhering to this convention, then surely an objection would have been warranted?
Ultimately to blame the lack of a speedy trial on the defendant or even the court is a gross oversimplification.
During the first trial the prosecution did not provide any justification after challenging two jurors, thereby prolonging
voir dire - and the entire trial - for no justifiable reason. The prosecution's three week absence may be forgiven - real life happens, things get in the way - but the ensuing delay of
forty-five days before the prosecution even refiled the case? That cannot in good conscience be ignored. It represents a complete disrespect for the constitutional rights of the accused, which exist in our democracy no matter how severe the crimes of which they are accused.
