Mass. Supreme Judicial Court hears speedy-trial challenge in Commonwealth v. LaRice

BOSTON — The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on Thursday heard argument in Commonwealth v. John LaRice over whether LaRice’s pretrial delay violated his right to a speedy trial.

Emily Carty, counsel for LaRice, told the court that LaRice “was jailed for 1,341 days pretrial in violation of his right to a speedy trial,” and identified five contested categories of delay the defense says should count against the Commonwealth: (1) a period when Rule 14 mandatory discovery, including grand jury minutes and ballistics results, remained outstanding; (2) the period while pretrial motions were pending; (3) the interval between LaRice’s filing to rescind his pro se status and the hearing on that motion; (4) the time his first Rule 36 speedy-trial motion was pending; and (5) a span when the Commonwealth said it could not secure its witnesses. Carty argued the Commonwealth failed to make the required particularized showing under Rule 36 that witnesses were unavailable and that resource congestion (for example, a lack of stenographers producing grand jury minutes) should not be charged to the defendant.

The dispute over witness availability centered on a December 5, 2022 status…