Cheryl Hanna [Professor of Law, Vermont Law School]: "The Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Assault, along with seventeen other similar organizations from across the country, filed an amicus brief in Vermont v. Brillon to call to the Court's attention the impact the decision will have on victims of domestic and sexual violence. We are particularly concerned that allowing a speedy trial claim based solely on delays attributable to the defendant and his counsel will frustrate the ability of the state to prosecute these crimes.

One of the most troubling aspects of the case is that the Vermont Supreme Court decision did not account for the fact that in domestic and sexual violence cases, there is a particularly high risk that defendants will manipulate the court system and attempt to further control and harass victims. Unfortunately, the defendant's behavior in this case is all too typical of domestic and sexual offenders. Michael Brillon is a habitual domestic offender with fourteen prior convictions, including a felony sexual assault of a minor. His abusive and controlling behavior did not end upon his arrest and his case would have been tried within a reasonable time but for his own behavior. He fired three attorneys, in part because they did not engage in arguably unethical discovery that would have "trashed" his victim and dissuaded her from proceeding. Brillon even threatened the life of one of his attorneys, turning his abusive behavior on the court itself. The kinds of delays and abusive behavior he exhibited can significantly impact a victim's life physically, emotionally, and financially. Such delays also make it less likely a victim will decide to proceed with a criminal case. Defendants and their counsel understand that without the victim's participation, prosecution is unlikely. The Vermont Supreme Court decision gives even more incentive to defendants and their counsel to game the system to their strategic advantage. This is particularly troubling given that the remedy for a speedy trial violation is dismissal.

We agree that continuances and delays caused solely by an indigent defendant's public defender can rise to a speedy trial violation if attributable to the inability or unwillingness of the state public defender system to appoint adequate counsel in a timely manner. However, a speedy trial claim should never be predicated on delays caused by defendants and/or their counsel. The only way for a court to determine the cause of a delay is to engage in adequate fact-finding. We are hopeful that the United States Supreme Court will clarify the limits of the speedy trial right and alert the trial and appellate courts to the particular risks of defense delay tactics in domestic and sexual violence cases and the consequences of those delays on victims, the public, and the criminal justice system."