Here’s another interesting story from California.
Apparently, Riverside County has a “shortage” of judges and courtrooms, and the defendants in these cases refused to waive the right to a speedy trial, so a trial judge dismissed the cases. (I’m not 100% sure why a defendant would waive the right to a speedy trial to begin with, unless they’re making some sort of deal with prosecutors. “Waive your speedy trial right, and we won’t oppose your bail application,” maybe? I wonder if Patrick or Ken might be able to comment.)
Riverside County prosecutors seemed to be contending that there were judges available, if the court had called upon probate, family law, and juvenile judges to hear the cases. (I’m not 100% sure about the courtrooms, but is there a constitutional requirement that cases be heard in a courtroom? As opposed to, say, an unused meeting room at a public library, or the gym at the local middle school?)
The state Supreme Court, on the other hand, seems to be taking the position that if the California Legislature won’t hire new judges, then they’ll just start throwing out felony cases. By God, that’ll show ’em!
And the California Legislature, of course, doesn’t feel like it has the money to hire new judges and build new courtrooms…
Yeah, I don’t see this ending well.