A man convicted as a teen in a Fairfax County court for allegedly shooting a person in the face during a drug deal had his conviction reversed this summer due to violations of his right to a speedy trial.
Virginia’s Court of Appeals reversed the young man’s 2023 conviction for unlawful wounding on July 14 after finding that a deadline extension granted for the trial didn’t qualify for an exception specifically allowed by the state’s speedy trial law.
On Aug. 10, the Virginia attorney general’s office, which handled the case during the appeals process, filed a notice of intent to appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court, court records show. The attorney general’s office did not respond to requests for comment.
Regardless of the outcome of that legal maneuver, the ruling has already put prosecutors across Virginia on notice.
“It is incumbent upon the Commonwealth to calculate, with precision, the time by which a prosecution must commence,” the appellate court’s ruling states. “These time limitations are unforgiving, and the severity of the crime to be prosecuted is immaterial to the analysis.”
‘A confluence of events’
The story of how someone found guilty of shooting another person in the face was, years later, discharged from prosecution, began months before the case went to trial.
“This is a very unusual case,” said Corrina Barrett Lain, the George E. Allen Chair in Law at the University of Richmond School of Law. “This is [a] confluence of events that created an outcome that had a number of different off-ramps, and…for whatever reason, none of those off-ramps were used.”
In 2023, 16-year-old “C.W.” was charged with aggravated malicious wounding, robbery by use of a firearm, and use of a firearm in commission of a robbery. (Though the individual is now an adult, FFXnow is identifying him by initials instead of his full name, because he was a minor when the crime occurred, and the subsequent conviction has been reversed.)
Prosecutors said the crime took place during a drug deal gone bad.
The Fairfax County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court certified those charges to a Circuit Court grand jury on April 12, 2023. A trial date was set for July 17 of the same year.
With C.W. in custody, the statutory clock started ticking as soon as the charges were sent to the grand jury.
With a handful of exceptions for circumstances outside of courts’ control, Virginia’s speedy trial law requires that any person continuously in custody for five months — 152 and a fraction of days — be “forever discharged from prosecution.” The purpose of the law is to uphold the constitutional presumption of innocence and impose a check on the government’s power.
Even if the state is waiting for evidence, prosecutors still have to honor the law’s requirement: try the case or release on bail.
In July, C.W.’s trial had been pushed back to Sept. 12, 2023 — a delay that didn’t count against prosecutors because it came at the request of his defense attorney.
But at a hearing on September 8, just a few days before the trial had been scheduled to begin, prosecutors asked for a delay: the Virginia Department of Forensic Science (DFS) had not assigned a lab technician to examine the DNA, four months after the evidence was submitted.
Forensic delays
DFS says it doesn’t discuss specific cases, but generally speaking, case assignments are made by supervisors based on information submitted by law enforcement agencies on an official form, and sometimes during pre-submission conferences.
“To help staff effectively prioritize work to meet trial deadlines, DFS encourages law enforcement officers and Commonwealth’s Attorneys to notify either the assigned examiner (Forensic Scientist) or the Section Supervisor when a court date is set,” DFS Chief Deputy Director Amy Jenkins told FFXnow in an email.
“This notification is especially critical for DNA cases,” she said.
“DFS has continued to experience increases in forensic biology turnaround times as both the demand for and complexity of these analyses have exceeded and outpaced the Department’s available resources, even with ongoing efforts to reduce turnaround times,” Jenkins added.
On average, DFS took 159 days — just over five months — to turn around forensic biology cases in 2023, she said.
Due to the growing reliance on this type of evidence, the Virginia General Assembly funded more forensic biology scientist positions for fiscal years 2025 and 2026. Once the four new hires are completely trained, the additional qualified examiners should help with turnaround times.
While DFS doesn’t talk about specific cases such as C.W.’s, Jenkins says that, in general, Virginia law states that “a party intending to introduce DNA analysis results must provide written notice to the opposing party, including a copy of the report, at least 21 days in advance of the trial date.”
According to Jenkins:
“Once DFS is notified of the trial date, the Forensic Scientist will strive to complete the analysis at least 21 days before the scheduled trial date to allow time for this required notification.
“If the case has not yet been assigned, the Forensic Biology Section Supervisor will ensure it is assigned promptly and will inform the examiner of the upcoming trial date so they can meet the ’21-day deadline.’
“Because of this added statutory requirement for forensic biology cases, it is essential that DFS be notified of trial dates as soon as they are set. The Department will continue to emphasize the importance of timely notification of trial deadlines to law enforcement and Commonwealth’s Attorneys through all available communication channels.”
Fairfax County’s Office of the Commonwealth’s Attorney declined to comment on whether there were any internal policy changes made after the appellate court’s ruling on C.W.’s case.
The continuance
Faced with the choice of whether to proceed to trial without DNA evidence or ask for the additional time and let C.W. out on bail, the Commonwealth asked for a continuance.
C.W.’s public defender made it clear the defense objected to the delay unless C.W. was released on bond in accordance with speedy trial laws.
The circuit court judge subsequently granted the continuance, but said C.W. would not be released, citing concerns for the safety of the victim and the community.
In its ruling, the Court of Appeals explained the circuit court’s legal reasoning:
“The circuit court found for the Commonwealth for the following reasons: (1) the delay in DNA testing was beyond the control of the court and the parties, (2) the Commonwealth requested testing in a timely manner, (3) the continuance was meant to ensure a fair trial, and (4) the DNA results could include both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence.”
However, the appellate court ruled this decision was in error: While Virginia’s speedy trial law allows deadline extensions for circumstances of “a similar nature” that have “the same rationale” as an exception specifically allowed, all of the listed exceptions have to do with witness availability.
According to the three-judge panel on the appellate court:
“Following the Commonwealth’s argument and the circuit court’s reasoning to its natural conclusion, if all delays related to DNA testing operated as a tolling provision, a criminal defendant’s right to a speedy trial would be entirely subject to DFS internal assignment policies, and there would be no limit to the time that a person would remain in custody awaiting trial so long as it was related to DNA analysis.”
The prosecution received the test results on Oct. 13, 2023 —182 days after it sent the evidence in for testing.
On Nov. 9, C.W.’s attorney filed a motion to dismiss the case, citing his right to a speedy trial. The circuit court judge kept the motion under advisement, but after more legal back-and-forth between the attorneys, the judge ruled against C.W. during jury deliberations.
The jury convicted C.W. of unlawful wounding and use of a firearm in the commission of a maiming, but it acquitted him of robbery. A firearms conviction was later set aside. C.W. was sentenced to five years in prison.
After years of making its way through the legal system, the appellate court heard C.W.’s appeal in March. In July, as first reported by Virginia Lawyers Weekly, it reversed the circuit court’s decision to deny his motion to dismiss for failure to comply with speedy trial requirements.
C.W. had spent 158 days in custody that counted toward the Commonwealth’s limit, the court ruled. Virginia law only allows “152 and a fraction days.”
“An accused’s statutory right to a speedy trial under Code Section 19.2-243 is not a mere technical loophole,” the court wrote. “It is a principle, derived from the Sixth Amendment, designed to ensure a fair trial.
“While enforcing these strict procedural boundaries may occasionally result in a guilty individual escaping punishment, this cost is indispensable to prevent government overreach.”
“This was very important that the Court of Appeals said no,” said Lain, the University of Richmond professor, who is also a former prosecutor,” because this would have given the Commonwealth the ability to … just completely upend [the speedy trial act and] make [it] worth nothing.”
‘Three things that could have gone differently’
Lain, who is not involved in the case, says she “can think of three things that could have gone differently, where this person would not be discharged forever.”
“One is the Commonwealth could have been checking in on that DNA evidence if it felt that it absolutely had to have it to go forward,” she said, adding that’s something the prosecution should’ve been doing “from the very beginning.”
In addition, prosecutors could’ve moved forward with a trial without the DNA results, she said — especially since they had witness testimony.
“Given the evidence that it had, and the witness to the offense, it is surprising that the Commonwealth asked for a continuance, imperiling the entire prosecution,” Lain said.
Finally, when facing the dilemma of whether to grant bail to “a very dangerous person,” the circuit court judge could have still “said, ‘No, I’m denying this continuance,'” Lain noted.
The University of Richmond professor is giving three workshops this fall that will include discussions on the ruling in C.W.’s case: one for public defenders, one to law clerks, and one to judges.
“This is one where you’re like, pay attention here. Look what happened,” she said. “…In some ways, you learn more from the cases you get wrong than the cases you get right.”
