Both the United States and Minnesota Constitutions promise those accused of crimes the right to a “speedy trial”. US Const. amend. VI; Minn. Const. art. I, § 6. This blog provides an overview of this important right, its history, what it protects, how to demand a speedy trial, what “speedy” means, and how your speedy trial right can lead to dismissal.

The Speedy Trial Right has Ancient Roots.

The right to swift resolution of accusations is nearly a thousand years old. It is traced back to at least 1166 when Henry II of England enacted the Assize of Clarendon. This ancient law helped transform the English justice system and has been credited with leading to jury trials as well. The famous Magna Carta further developed the speedy trial right in 1215.

America’s founders built our legal system largely off of these principles, and the English law that grew around them. Today, the United States Constitution and all 50 States guarantee this most basic right to all accused.

Speedy Trials Protect Against Many Harms.

Accusations cause consequences. A speedy trial minimizes them. Pending criminal charges may show up on background checks conducted for schooling, employment, professional licensing, or housing purposes. Criminal accusations often cause public and private ridicule and scorn. Even friends and family may distance themselves from someone accused of a crime.

As noted by the United States Supreme Court, even minor criminal accusations like trespassing will “almost certainly” force the accused to limit their own speech, associations, and participation in public events. Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 222 (1967). A pending accusation typically causes significant anxiety as well. Living every day in worry of an unproven allegation causes stress, disrupts life, and negatively affects the accused.

Damage caused by a slow trial increases massively when the accused is in jail and cannot post bail. Excessive pre-trial incarceration may lead to lost jobs, lost relationships, missed school, lost housing, and substantial monetary costs.

The Minnesota Supreme Court also recognizes that the speedy trial right protects “society as a whole by preventing backlogs in the judicial system, maximizing the potential for rehabilitation, and minimizing systemic costs of pretrial imprisonment.” State v. Paige, 977 N.W.2d 829 (Minn. 2022).

Lastly, delay may harm the accused’s ability to defend themselves at trial. Evidence may get lost. Cellphone data or video data is often subject to a deletion schedule, for example. Memories of key witnesses may also fade over time.  

Speedy Trials Must Be Demanded by The Accused.

It is the accused’s responsibility to demand a speedy trial. This can be done by filing a written demand with the Court or orally on the record while in Court. Furthermore, unless something changes later, a speedy trial demand should be reasserted during later hearings.

Your lawyer can help you weigh the pros and cons of demanding a speedy trial in your case and make sure any speedy trial demand is received by the Court.

Speedy Means Within 60 Days Unless Good Reasons for Delay Exist.

The Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure state that if the accused demands a speedy trial, “the trial must start within 60 days unless the court finds good cause for a later trial date.” Minn. R. Crim. P. 11.09(b). To decide if any delay beyond the 60 days violated the accused’s speedy trial right, Courts consider several factors:

1. The length of the delay: only delays of more than 60 days after the demand was made will be considered.
2. The reason for the delay: there is no exact list of reasons that do or do not amount to good cause. Every case must be considered individually. As general guidance, Courts have found that:
   • if the accused caused the delay, then there is no speedy trial violation.
   • the Court’s generally busy schedule is usually not a good reason for delay.
   • the State’s need for more time to complete something like DNA testing may be good cause
3. Whether the accused demanded a speedy trial: both the frequency and intensity of the assertion may be considered.
4. Whether the delay prejudiced the accused: the accused may affirmatively prove prejudice by showing they lost the ability to present specific testimony or evidence. However, most often, prejudice is presumed from the delay itself. Prejudice is presumed any time more than six months has passed since the accused is formally charged or arrested.

A Violation of the Speedy Trial Right Requires Dismissal.

Both the Minnesota and United States Supreme Court recognize that the “only possible remedy” for a speedy trial right violation is dismissal of the case. State v. Osorio, 891 N.W.2d 620, 627 (Minn. 2017). An experienced criminal defense lawyer can help you decide whether and when to demand a speedy trial and to convince the judge that any delay violated your speedy trial right, requiring dismissal.

That said, a speedy trial is not always in your best interest. You effectively get one shot to beat your case, and delay may be helpful. The prosecution may lose track of key witnesses. Faded memories may be more helpful to the defense than the prosecutor. Furthermore, if there are important witnesses or evidence the police did not find, delays may be necessary to find them. All in all, every case must be considered individually, and your lawyer can help you assess your options.

—

If you or someone you know has been accused of a crime in Minnesota, don’t wait to get the legal help you need. Contact McKinney Defense today by calling (612) 300-1208 or filling out our online form to schedule a FREE consultation. Let me fight for your rights and help you take the first step toward fair representation.

Copyright © 2025 McKinney Defense PLLC. All rights reserved.

This blog post (“post”) is provided for general informational purposes only and may not reflect the current law in Minnesota or your jurisdiction. No information in this post should be construed as legal advice from the individual author or the law firm, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader of this post should act or refrain from acting based on any information included in or accessible through this post without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s state, country, or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction.