This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Friday, January 26, 2018.

I'm Caleb Brown.

After Joseph Tegano III was arrested for a marijuana grow operation,

he regularly and vociferously asserted his right to a speedy

trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. He sat in jail for nearly seven years

before he went to trial and was convicted. Now the Second Circuit has thrown out that conviction

with prejudice, but why isn't anyone being held

to account for violating Mr. Taganos' rights?

Clark Neely, Vice President for Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute, comments.

So it appears that Mr. Tagano and his father operated a pretty substantial marijuana production

operation in upstate New York somewhere near Buffalo.

They were arrested by the Drug Enforcement Administration prosecuted by federal authorities.

The Constitution, the trials be speedy.

It's a speedy trial requirement and there's no set in stone period of time.

Different cases will have different dynamics and

different factors affecting how long it can take to go to trial, but basically

things are supposed to move expeditiously. They did not move expeditiously in Mr. Tigano's case and in fact he was arrested in July of 2008 and his trial finally commenced only in May of 2015, some six years, nine months and 26 days later.

And the question for the Court of Appeals, after he was convicted on five counts was whether his speedy trial

rights were violated.

Yeah, there was a, there was a, he was apparently required to undergo a series of evaluations in part because he requested a speedy

trial?

That's right and he didn't just request a speedy trial.

...