Proposals to amend Florida’s Speedy Trial Rule have brought a raft of criticisms from — among others — public defenders, the Bar’s Criminal Law Section, and the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee (CPRC) but are being defended as needed by the Supreme Court’s Criminal Courts Steering Committee and the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association (FPAA).

Pending at the court are two alternatives to amend Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191 on speedy trial, as well as Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140 — on appeals over whether “exceptional circumstances” apply to a nolle pros. The proposals would also amend Rule 3.134 on pretrial release sanctions.

As explained by the Florida Public Defenders Association (FPDA), “the proposed ‘Alternative A’ for Rule 3.191 — through its subsections (a) and (h) — provide that a defendant may seek a speedy trial remedy only ‘if a formal charging document is pending.’ The proposal for ‘Alternative B’ removes the speedy trial without demand time periods completely, mandating that a defendant can only effectuate the right to a speedy trial by filing a demand.”