How has the supreme court interpreted the sixth amendment guarantee of a speedy trial?

Answer 1

Courts are supposed to first consider how long of a delay there has been, and if the delay is long enough to make it a possible constitutional violation, THEN the next step is for the Court to consider the reasons for the delay and whose fault it was. If there was a long delay but it was due to the Defendant not being ready while the government was ready to prosecute, this Defendant probably has not had his rights violated. But if the defendant was ready and especially if the Defendant asked for a speedy trial and announced "ready" at prior court appearances, then any delay is going to be viewed as the State's problem.

Finally, the Court needs to look at whether there was any "prejudice" to the Defendant. Prejudice means that it's harder for him to defend himself from the charges against him now than it would have been if he had his trial months or years ago. Sometimes prejudice can be presumed if the delay is really long and not excused for good cause, but generally the Defendant will want to show that certain evidence or testimony that he expected to use for his side is no longer available now, but it was available earlier.

Answer 2

It should be 50 days between the arrest and the beginning of a trial.

Answer 3

It is different in each case.