Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.


Justice Sullivan

A WARRANT TO arrest defendant for a March 1995 home invasion, gunpoint robbery and sexual assault was issued on Dec. 3, 1996. Defendant sought dismissal of a 2003 indictment charging him with burglary, robbery and related crimes. He argued that the prosecution was not ready for trial within six months and had failed to exercise due diligence in locating him after the warrant’s issuance. The court denied dismissal, concluding that the prosecution’s failure to indict defendant in absentia did not violate his speedy trial rights. Noting the investigating detective’s efforts to locate defendant in New York and Florida, the court found that because he used aliases and repeatedly moved locations, defendant sought to avoid apprehension, relieving the prosecution of its obligation to use due diligence to locate defendant and execute the arrest warrant. The court also noted the district attorney’s policy not to indict absent defendants.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.