Can I Waive Speedy Trial Rights in Federal Case
Seventy days. That's what the federal Speedy Trial Act gives you from indictment to trial. The average complex federal case takes 12 to 18 months. Do the math - something has to give, and what gives is your "right" to speed. In almost every federal case, the defense attorney asks you to waive speedy trial. Not because they're lazy. Because 70 days isn't enough time to save your life.
The gap between the statutory deadline and actual case timelines creates a choice most defendants don't understand until they're staring at a waiver form. Insist on your right to speed, and you force your attorney into a trial they haven't fully prepared for. Waive it, and you enter a procedural dance that can stretch for years - a dance the Supreme Court has made extremely complicated.
Welcome to Spodek Law Group. We handle federal criminal defense, and one of the most common questions we get is whether to waive speedy trial rights. The answer is almost always yes - but understanding why requires knowing what the law actualy says, what it doesnt say, and what happens when you try to use it.
The 70-Day Timeline That Nobody Actually Follows
The Speedy Trial Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3161, sets strict deadlines for federal criminal cases. An indictment must be filed within 30 days from the date of your arrest or the service of a summons. Trial must begin within 70 days from the filing of the indictment, or from the date you first appear before the court - whichever comes later. Congress even built in a minimum: your trial cant start less then 30 days from your first appearance, to make sure you have atleast some time to prepare.
But here's where it gets complicated. The Act includes a long list of "excludable" time periods - delays that dont count against the 70-day clock. Time spent on pretrial motions gets excluded. Competency evaluations get excluded. Delays caused by a codefendant get excluded. And most importantly, continuances granted for the "ends of justice" get excluded - if the judge makes specific findings on the record that the delay serves justice better then forcing the case to trial. The judge has to articulate exactly why, and can't just cite "general congestion" or say the prosecution needs more time becuase they weren't ready. This means every single continuance requires a separate hearing and separate findings. It's not a simple checkbox - its a procedural requirement that takes time itself.
The practical reality is that complex federal cases - especially white-collar prosecutions, conspiracy charges, or cases with multiple defendants - routinely take 12 to 18 months to reach trial. Some take longer. The government may have spent years building the case before you ever knew you were a target. They walk into the courtroom with boxes of documents, witness statements, and expert reports. You get the file and have weeks to catch up.
So what happens if you insist on your 70-day right? Your attorney scrambles. Discovery review gets rushed. Suppression motions get filed without complete factual development. Expert witnesses cant be retained in time. Investigation into potential defenses gets cut short. You go to trial with a defense thats been assembled under impossable pressure - while the government brings a case they've been building for months or years.
This is why your defense attorney will ask you to waive. Its not that we dont want to fight for you. We want to fight with actual weapons.
Why Every Defense Attorney Asks You to Sign That Waiver
At some point early in your case, your lawyer is going to hand you a document and ask you to sign it. The document waives your speedy trial rights, or consents to a continuance for the "ends of justice." Almost every defendant in federal court signs this form. Waiving speedy trial is the norm, not the exception.
The reason is simple: asymetry. Federal prosecutors have resources you don't have. They've had months - sometimes years - to investigate before bringing charges. They've already interviewed witnesses, gathered documents, and built their case. You get the discovery file after arraignment. In complex cases, that file can be thousands of pages of documents, hours of recorded conversations, mountains of financial records. Your attorney needs time to review it all, identify problems, and build a defense.
Consider what happens if you dont waive. Your attorney files a motion to suppress evidence - but discovery hasn't finished, so they're working with incomplete information. They retain an expert witness - but the expert needs months to review the case, and you've only got weeks. They want to interview witnesses - but locating and scheduling those interviews takes time you dont have. Every motion gets rushed. Every strategy gets compressed. You go to trial with a defense that's been assembled under impossable conditions. Maybe you get convicted. You appeal, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel - and the court says you demanded speedy trial, so you cant complain about inadequate preparation time. You demanded the 70 days. You got them. You loose.
There's another consideration that most people miss: delay can work in your favor. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that "deprivation of the right may work to the accused's advantage." Witnesses forget. Evidence degrades. Prosecutors get reassigned. Cases get stale. Sometimes the best defense strategy is to wait - let the passage of time erode the government's case while you prepare yours.
The "right" to speedy trial is often the right to lose faster.
The Supreme Court Says You Can't Waive "For All Time"
Here's where it gets strange. You'd think if waiving speedy trial is standard practice, the law would make it easy. It doesn't.
In 2006, the Supreme Court decided Zedner v. United States. Jacob Zedner was arrested in 1996 for trying to pass counterfeit Treasury securities - a fake $10 million bond from something called the "Ministry of Finance of U.S.A." Due to scheduling difficultys, the trial kept getting delayed. The judge suggested that Zedner waive his speedy trial rights "for all time." Zedner signed the form. Seven years later, his case finally went to trial. He was convicted. He appealed, arguing that the Speedy Trial Act had been violated.
The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with him. Justice Alito wrote that a defendant cannot prospectively waive the protections of the Speedy Trial Act. Even though Zedner had signed the waiver. Even though the judge had requested it. Even though everyone agreed to it at the time. The waiver was invalid.
Why? Because the Act wasn't designed just for defendants. It was designed for the public. Courts have an independent interest in resolving cases efficiently - they cant let cases linger forever just because both sides are fine with delay. If defendants could waive speedy trial "for all time," nobody would ever bother with the "ends of justice" findings the Act requires. The whole procedural framework would collapse. The Court also rejected an "estoppel" argument - that Zedner should be barred from complaining because he'd signed the waiver. Allowing estoppel would "entirely swallow the Act's no-waiver policy."
So you dance. Continuance after continuance. Each one requires fresh findings from the judge. Each one requires a hearing. Each one goes on the record.
The Act protects more then just you. It protects the system from becoming clogged with cases that never resolve. Your convenience isnt the only factor the court considers.
What Winning the Speedy Trial Motion Actually Gets You
Let's say you do insist on speedy trial, the government violates the deadline, and you file a motion to dismiss. Let's say you win. What have you actually accomplished?
The charges get dismissed. But in approximately 75% of federal speedy trial dismissals, the dismissal is without prejudice. That means the government can re-indict you. Start the clock over. Try again. You won the motion. You didnt win the case.
Whether a dismissal is with or without prejudice depends on several factors under the Act: the seriousness of the offense, the circumstances that led to the dismissal, and the impact of a reprosecution on the administration of justice. In United States v. Taylor, the Supreme Court held that a "minor violation" of time limits that didn't prejudice the defendant's trial preparation didnt justify dismissal with prejudice for serious drug charges. Translation: if the violation was technical, and you weren't actually harmed by the delay, expect the case to come back.
Here's the irony. The "ends of justice" continuance is supposed to be, in the words of the Tenth Circuit, a "rarely used tool." It shouldn't be granted "cavalierly." In practice, it's granted in nearly every federal case. Because the alternative - forcing unprepared defendants into trial against prepared prosecutors - would be worse.
So should you waive speedy trial rights? In most cases, yes. But the decision requires understanding exactly what you're trading away. Todd Spodek has handled federal cases where timing was everything - where the strategic decision about when to push for trial and when to wait made the difference between conviction and acquittal.
If your facing federal charges and your attorney is asking you to waive speedy trial, call Spodek Law Group at 212-300-5196. The consultation is free. We'll help you understand what waiving means for your specific case - not in general, not in theory, but for you.
The speedy trial right exists. Whether to use it is a different question entirely.
