1) Consider the 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial. What is the purpose the 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial? Is that purpose being fulfilled in the modern American legal system? Why is there argumentatively an ethical and constitutional obligation for court personnel to ensure a speedy trial for a criminal defendant?

***Use the GCU Library for sources ( )

The DQ response must be at least 200 words and should have at least one reference in APA format

2) Write a 100-word response to each student in first person as if you were writing it to the students. Talk about how you agree with their ideas and add your own thoughts. Make sure it’s respectful.

Student 1) The Sixth Amendment states that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” With this, an accused person is given the right to a speedy trial for many reasons including not being stuck waiting for an answer and/or being held in pretrial detention. According to the American Bar Association, “The presumptive speedy trial time limit for persons held in pretrial detention should be [90] days from the date of the defendant’s first appearance in court after the filing of a charging instrument.” They also state that it should be 180 days who are on pretrial release. As a whole, our country does fairly well on fulfilling and upholding this. Recently, here in Albuquerque New Mexico, Fabian Gonzales, who was arrested for the murder of his girlfriend’s 10 year old daughter (who was also released on parole) had tried to file a case against the State for a violation of his right to a speedy trial; however, a judge found that it was not and he will still be facing charges. It is important to keep this in mind ethically and constitutionally because of that individual’s rights as well as their state of mind. If they are truly innocent and are held waiting, it is not ethically wrong and it would violate their rights. However, for people such as Fabian, who had tried to get his charges dropped for a very horrendous crime, it is ethically wrong for her family, herself, and the people within the community. It would also allow this man to remain off the streets and be a danger to other children.

Estrella Madrigal

(n.d.). Retrieved June 28, 2021, from…

Hayes, P. (2021, May 11). Fabian Gonzales’ right to a speedy trial was not violated, judge says. Retrieved June 28, 2021, from…

Student 2) The right to speedy trials originally dates all the way back to the Magna Carta being highly praised by the Constitution as a fundamental right secured by the sixth amendment, in which the importance of the speedy trial right has always been considered to be applied at the end of a conviction or through the sentencing process, (Saetveit, 2016). In 1974, the Congress enacted the speedy right trial act with the intention of establishing specific time limits between various stages of criminal proceedings, for example, the act requires an information or indictment to be filed within 30 days of a defendant’s arrest, (Annenberg Classroom, 2019).

The provision of the right to a speedy trial protects the rights of an accused from delaying the process, thus impairing the ability from one to defend himself as well as to prevent oppressive incarceration prior to trial, therefore, it must also serve the interests of defendants and society altogether, (Legal Information Institute, n.d). People being accused could be held indefinitely under a cloud of unproven criminal accusation and receive an unfair trial without the speedy trial, because if too much time passes by between the alleged crime and trial, then witnesses may leave the area or die, thus making relevant or physical evidence get lost, (Annenberg Classroom, 2019).

I believe that by ethically ensuring a speedy trial for a criminal defendant actually helps the prosecutor’s side to prove their accusation in which the faster and fresher the facts and evidence are in place, the better is for the revelation of the case. The system in all its fairness and integrity can also show ethical obligations to criminal defendants to maintain the dignity of the accused. In most cases, when there is ethical obligations and not abuse of authority from part of the judges or other court personnel, then the purpose of speedy trial rights to an accused can be fulfilled in modern American legal system.


Saetveit, K. (2016). Beyond Pollard: applying the Sixth Amendment’s speedy trial right to sentencing. Stanford Law Review, 68(2), 481.

Sixth Amendment – Right to speedy trial. (2019, February 27). Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved from:…

Right to a speedy and public trial. (n.d.). Legal Information Institute. Retrieved from:…

Is this the question you were looking for? Place your Order Here