FOLLOW US

The appellate panel systematically demolished the prosecution's arguments with the kind of methodical legal reasoning that makes constitutional protections more than parchment promises. First, they found that neither McIntosh v. United States nor Harrow v. Department of Defense—the Supreme Court cases the prosecution cited—actually dealt with speedy trial challenges. Wrong constitutional neighborhood entirely.

More importantly, Colorado's speedy trial statute doesn't operate like federal rules that allow judicial balancing tests. "The relevant Colorado statute … explicitly mandates reversal if the deadline is not met," Judge Tow wrote, cutting through any suggestion that courts could weigh competing interests when the six-month clock runs out.

The prosecution's second argument—that defense conduct caused the delays—met an even more definitive rejection. The panel found it "simply cannot be said" that Mares or his counsel were responsible for the scheduling conflicts. More fundamentally, they reminded everyone involved that speedy trial compliance isn't the defendant's job. "The burden of compliance" rests with the court and the District Attorney's Office, not with defense counsel trying to navigate an overburdened system.

The panel drove this point home by citing People v. DeGreat, a 2020 Colorado Supreme Court decision establishing that defendants need only "move for a dismissal prior to trial" to preserve their speedy trial rights. No obligation to police the court's calendar. No duty to remind judges when statutory provisions expire. Just show up and object before the trial starts, which is exactly what Mares did.

What makes this decision particularly instructive is how it illustrates the difference between emergency legal measures and permanent systemic fixes. The 2021 COVID-19 extension wasn't a general grant of authority to manage pandemic backlogs indefinitely. It was a temporary patch with a specific expiration date, and when that date passed, the normal constitutional requirements snapped back into effect immediately.

The remedy here was as automatic as the violation was clear: dismissal with prejudice. No second chances, no do-overs, no opportunity for the state to re-file charges. When Colorado's speedy trial deadline passes without proper justification, the case ends permanently.

For practitioners, this decision reinforces several crucial points about speedy trial practice. First, emergency statutory provisions have shelf lives, and courts can't extend their authority beyond explicit expiration dates. Second, general case management principles don't override specific constitutional deadlines. Third, defendants bear no affirmative duty to monitor court compliance with speedy trial requirements—that responsibility belongs entirely to the system itself.