## Facts

- Michael Brillon was arrested on July 27, 2001, for felony domestic assault and charged as a habitual offender, facing a potential life sentence.
- He remained incarcerated pending trial and was tried and convicted by a jury in June 2004; he received a 12–20 year sentence.
- The pretrial period lasted nearly three years and involved at least six court-appointed defense attorneys.
- Brillon dismissed his first attorney; another withdrew after reporting Brillon threatened him; additional counsel withdrew or were removed, creating repeated turnover.
- Brillon lacked counsel for roughly four months before new counsel was appointed in August 2003 and took the case to trial.
- Brillon moved to dismiss on Sixth Amendment speedy-trial grounds; the trial court denied relief, finding most delay attributable to Brillon or his counsel.
- The Vermont Supreme Court reversed, found a speedy-trial violation under Barker v. Wingo, vacated the conviction, and ordered the charges dismissed.

## Issues

1. Under Barker v. Wingo’s “reason for the delay” factor, whether delay caused by court-appointed defense counsel is ordinarily attributed to the defendant or the State.
2. When, if ever, delays connected to a publicly funded defense system may be attributed to the State for Sixth Amendment speedy-trial purposes.
3. Whether defendants represented by publicly financed counsel receive different speedy-trial attribution treatment than defendants with retained counsel.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Vermont Supreme Court and remanded.
- The Court held that delays caused by assigned counsel are ordinarily attributable to the defendant, the same as delays caused by retained counsel.
- The Court rejected treating public defenders as state actors for purposes of allocating responsibility for delay in the Barker analysis.
- The Court stated that the State may be charged with periods when counsel was unavailable if the trial court failed to appoint replacement counsel with reasonable dispatch, or if the record shows a breakdown in the public defender system.
- The Court concluded the record did not establish an institutional breakdown sufficient to attribute most of the delay to the State.

## Legal Principles

- Sixth Amendment speedy-trial claims are evaluated under Barker v. Wingo by balancing: length of delay, reason for delay, the defendant’s assertion of the right, and prejudice.
- For the “reason for the delay” factor, courts ask whether the government or the defendant is more to blame for the delay.
- Delay caused by defense counsel’s actions or continuance requests is ordinarily charged to the defendant, regardless of whether counsel is retained or appointed.
- The State may bear responsibility for delay where (a) the court fails to appoint replacement counsel promptly after withdrawal or removal, or (b) there is a demonstrated breakdown in the public defender system.
- Public financing of defense counsel does not, by itself, justify attributing counsel-caused delay to the State or applying a different speedy-trial rule.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that, in applying Barker’s speedy-trial framework, delays attributable to appointed defense counsel are generally charged to the defendant, with State responsibility limited to proven institutional breakdowns in the public defender system or unjustified delays in appointing replacement counsel.


Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81 (2009)