Can pandemic delays violate a defendant's right to speedy trial? State v. Puente Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a three-year delay between charges and trial violated a defendant’s constitutional right to speedy trial, particularly where pandemic-related court closures contributed significantly to the delay.

Background and Facts

In November 2018, the State charged Keshaun Puente with murder and three counts of felony discharge of a firearm. Puente was not arrested until January 2019 in Nevada and subsequently extradited to Utah. His trial did not commence until November 2021, creating a three-year delay. During this period, various factors contributed to the delay: Puente’s own motions for continuances, refusal to be transported to court proceedings, pandemic-related court closures, and normal scheduling conflicts. The COVID-19 pandemic alone accounted for 443 days of delay as Utah courts suspended jury trials.

Key Legal Issues

The court applied the four-factor Barker test for evaluating Sixth Amendment speedy trial violations: (1) length of delay, (2) reason for delay, (3) defendant’s assertion of the right, and (4) prejudice to the defendant. The court also addressed whether defense counsel’s failure to object to prosecutor comments about motive during closing arguments constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that no speedy trial violation occurred despite the three-year delay. Significantly, the court ruled that pandemic-related delays should be considered “justified, or at least considered neutral and weighed against neither side.” The court found that 363 days of delay were attributable to Puente’s actions, 443 days to the pandemic, and 313 days to neutral scheduling matters. Regarding ineffective assistance, the court determined that counsel’s failure to object to prosecutor comments about motive—which is not an element of the charged crimes—neither fell below professional standards nor caused prejudice.

Practice Implications

This decision provides crucial guidance for practitioners handling speedy trial claims arising from pandemic-era delays. Courts will not hold pandemic-related delays against the state, fundamentally altering the calculus for speedy trial analyses involving cases delayed during 2020-2021. Defense attorneys should carefully document which specific delays are attributable to their clients versus external circumstances when preparing speedy trial motions.