Blaming the State For the Defendant's Lawyers: The Curious Case of Michael Brillon

A career criminal whose taxpayer-funded lawyers repeatedly delayed his case for three years is now free – because, he complains, it took too long to try his case.

Michael Brillon, whose long criminal record includes a conviction for sexual assault on a minor, was convicted in 2004 by a jury of assaulting his girlfriend. As a habitual offender, he was sentenced to 12 to 24 years in prison. (Note: Ohio has no habitual offender law.)

But Brillon sat in jail between his arrest and his trial. He went through six defense lawyers during that time, all of them paid from the public treasury. Brillon fired two of them, and three others quit – one of them said it was because Brillon had threatened his life, which seems to be at least a constructive firing.

Aside from the game of musical defense lawyer chairs cause by the Defendant, the defense asked to continue hearings in the case, with the consent of Mr. Brillon, because:

1. The defense lawyer was moving his office.
2. The defense lawyer wanted more time to file a motion to recuse the judge.
3. Various defense lawyers want more time to prepare.

And, Mr. Brillon waived his right to a speedy trial, not once but twice.

The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the delay offended the Constitution – and that it was somehow the state’s fault.

Maybe Mr. Brillon’s half-dozen lawyers took too long to get ready for trial. And the record seems to suggest serious problems with Vermont’s public defender, problems that no doubt frustrate the Vermont Supreme Court.

But setting a violent felon free on a community is no way to send a message. The length of time Mr. Brillon waited did not hurt his case – no documents were lost, no witnesses died or moved away or lost their memories. Justice was done on the merits.

Justice was not done on appeal. The Vermont Supreme Court allowed the defendant to control the process, and then penalized the community for it.

The United State Supreme Court has accepted the case. Perhaps at least five justices will recall that the point of a criminal trial is to fairly convict the guilty and acquit the innocent.