In People v. Sibblies,1 the Court of Appeals has revisited New York’s speedy trial statute and addressed certain strategies that have come under criticism by courts and members of the defense bar. Specifically, the court addressed the common scenario where the People file an off-calendar statement of readiness and subsequently announce in court that they are not ready to proceed. Thus, it is argued, in some cases the declaration of readiness is illusory and does not accurately reflect the People’s position.
Addressing this scenario, members of the court have issued two, three-judge concurrences that found a certificate of readiness invalid based upon different rationales. This column will attempt to discuss the decision’s precedential value.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
