Rear of New York State Court of Appeals Building, Albany. Photo: Daniel Case via Wikimedia Commons Rear of New York State Court of Appeals Building, Albany. (Photo: Daniel Case via Wikimedia Commons)

New York state law currently doesn't guarantee the right to a speedy trial in proceedings involving traffic infractions, but that could change after the state's highest court heard arguments on the topic Thursday.

The New York Court of Appeals was asked to weigh Thursday whether the right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should apply to traffic infractions.

The case involved Ganesh Ramlall, who was charged in 2012 with three counts of driving under the influence of alcohol. He faced two misdemeanor charges of driving while intoxicated and one infraction of driving while ability impaired, a violation.

Several months later, Ramlall moved to dismiss that misdemeanor DWI charges. He claimed that prosecutors were responsible for delaying his trial for 111 days, which is beyond the 90-day limit under state law.

That motion was granted, but that still left the traffic infraction in place against Ramlall. His motion to toss the violation was rejected because, as the court said, the facts of his case didn't meet the test of a speedy trial claim.

Ramlall was represented Thursday by Natalie Rea from the Legal Aid Society. She argued that the facts of the case presented a clear violation of Ramlall's right to a speedy trial on the violation, which had been pending for more than 900 days.

Rea said that, during that time, Ramlall made 29 appearances in court on the violation, which was time he had to set aside from his life to resolve the matter.

"He came in 29 times," Rea said. "That's six weeks of work for a person of really little means. It is prejudiced, and it's part of the prejudiced analysis."

That analysis comes in part from a different decision from the Court of Appeals decided in 1975. That case, People v Taranovich, established a five-factor test for determining if someone's right to a speedy trial has been violated.

The Appellate Term, Second Department had affirmed the trial court's ruling denying Ramlall's attempt to toss the violation on grounds of speedy trial. Using Taranovich, the appellate court said Ramlall had not presented enough evidence that his defense was impaired.

The case against Ramlall was handled by the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office. Assistant District Attorney Ann Bordley argued on behalf of the office Thursday.

Bordley said the delay in resolving Ramlall's violation was "concerning," but that it didn't mean his constitutional right to a speedy trial had been violated. Because a traffic infraction is a violation, it's not held to the same standard as criminal charges, she argued.

"The Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial should not apply to traffic violations," Bordley said. "I think it's a concerning fact, but I don't think that goes to the fact whether it's a constitutional question. I think that's a separate question."

The court's judges appeared mixed on who to blame for the trial's delay. At one point in the case at the trial level, prosecutors were ready to proceed, but the defense was not because they were still trying to obtain a witness, Rea said.

Associate Judge Paul Feinman said that strategy could have worked to the advantage of Ramlall.

"Why is your inability to get the witness something that should go against them?" Feinman said. "Delay is the defendant's friend. Everybody knows it."

But then, once the defense was prepared to proceed, prosecutors were no longer able. That's because the officer involved in the case was injured in the line of duty, Bordley said. Fahey called the prosecution's failure to proceed, regardless, incompetent.

"How much incompetence crosses the line to become actual prejudice?" Fahey said. "There's a fair amount of incompetence."

That's a question the court could attempt to answer when it hands down its ruling in the case. A decision is likely to come sometime next month.

READ MORE:

NY High Court Weighs Impact of New Rent Laws in Series of Tenant Overcharge Cases

From Rent Regulation to the Opioid Crisis, a Look Back at 2019′s Key NY Court of Appeals Decisions

NY High Court Decision Spurs Proposal From Cuomo for Stricter Online Disclosure by Sex Offenders