Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Speedy Trial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge denies motion to dismiss after disputed indictment timing in Shepard case
Summary
The court denied a defense motion alleging violation of the right to a speedy trial. Defendant Andrew Shepard testified he was unaware of the indictment until 2023; the state and judge examined booking and indictment records before the court ruled the motion would be denied.
The 187th District Court on the docket denied a motion to dismiss filed in the case of Andrew Shepard after a contested hearing over whether delay between arrest and indictment violated his speedy-trial rights.
Defense attorney Martin Garrett asked the court to consider prejudice to Shepard, who testified under oath that he had been unaware of any indictment until late 2023 and described lost employment opportunities as a result of the pending case. Shepard testified that several full-time job offers were rescinded after employers discovered the pending matter.
The state and defense disputed the operative dates. Prosecutors and the court reviewed Odessa/Odyssey booking and indictment entries; the state said the indictment was returned and the record unsealed on Oct. 31, 2023, while defense described an earlier arrest and contended that the recorded dates warranted a speedy-trial presumption. The court discussed whether any earlier custody or booking constituted notice that would trigger speedy-trial calculations.
After hearing testimony and argument, the court stated it would deny the motion to dismiss and directed the parties to confer about scheduling next steps; the record reflects the court made findings about the documentary record and the timeline of bookings and indictments in reaching that decision. The court also allowed the defendant to appear by phone for portions of the hearing and handled related procedural matters including potential trial scheduling and evidentiary exchange.
No final trial date was announced on the record during the docket call; the judge indicated the defense could seek a speedy trial date and that waivers and written consents would be required for a remote trial appearance.
The hearing focused on government recordkeeping, the dates when the case was unsealed and indicted, and whether the delay created prejudice, rather than any new factual allegations about the underlying offense.
