Motion to Dismiss for Failure 
to Provide a Speedy Trial
by Andrew Forsythe
CAUSE NO. _____
THE STATE OF TEXAS	§	IN THE COUNTY COURT
v.	§	AT LAW NO. __
____________________________	§	TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
	COMES NOW, Defendant in the above entitled and numbered cause, and moves the Court to dismiss the information/indictment filed herein, and in support of such motion would show the Court as follows:
	1. The length of the delay in this cause, the causes of that delay, the extent of the Defendant’s assertion of the right to a speedy trial in this cause, and the prejudice to the Defendant resulting from the delay, have worked to deprive the Defendant of his right to a speedy trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 10, of the Texas constitution, and Article 1.05 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
	2. The length of the delay in this cause, beginning from the date of the alleged offense, the causes of that delay, and the actual prejudice to the Defendant resulting from the delay, have violated the Defendant’s right to Due Process of Law as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as Defendant’s right to due course of law as guaranteed by Article I, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution and Article 1.04 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
	WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, pursuant to the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article I, Sections 10 and 19 of the Texas Constitution, and Articles 1.04 and 1.05 ofthe Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the Defendant respectfully requests a dismissal of the information/indictment filed herein.

Respectfully submitted,

WILLIAMS & FORSYTHE
1100 West Avenue
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 477-9959 telephone
(512) 477-9262 facsimile
By: ____________________________
ANDREW J. FORSYTHE
State Bar No. 07264700

Attorney for Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
My signature above certifies that a true copy of the foregoing MOTION was forwarded to the Attorney for the State on this ____ day of _________ , 20__.

CAUSE NO. _____
THE STATE OF TEXAS	§	IN THE COUNTY COURT
v.	§	AT LAW NO. __
____________________________	§	TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

ORDER
	On this the ___ day of __________ , 20___, came on to be heard the foregoing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Provide a Speedy Trial and said Motion is hereby:

_____ GRANTED
_____ DENIED

____________________________________
JUDGE PRESIDING

SPEEDY TRIAL CASES
	1) Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). The mother of all ST cases. The 4 factor balancing test.
	2) United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971). ST time starts running with arrest or when charging instrument filed, whichever is first.
	Also, pre-indictment delay doesn’t count, absent a Due Process violation.
	3) Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992). Most delays of eight months or longer are presumptively unreasonable.
	Also, as delay approaches one year, it is usually considered “presumptively prejudicial.”
	Also, delay in arresting D. counts.
	Also, can’t penalize D. for not asserting right when he didn’t know he’d been charged.
	4) State v. Owens, 778 S.W.2d 135 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist] 1989). Length of delay tolerated varies with the complexity of the case. In this burglary case, 7 months was too long.
	) Pierce v. State, 921 S.W.2d 291 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1996. Excellent incorporation of Doggett and other USSC cases, in reversing on ST grounds.
	6) Phipps v. State, 630 S.W.2d 942 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982)(Panel Op.). Proving prejudice due to absent witness(es).
	7) Zamorano v. State, 84 S.W.3d 643 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Different ways a D. can be “prejudiced” by the delay.
	8) United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1 (1982). Pre-indictment delay doesn’t count, absent a Due Process violation.
	9) Ex parte Carrio, 992 S.W.2d 486 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). “Laches” invoked in a criminal case.