Yes, significant delays caused by the scheduling and completion of the Article 32 preliminary hearing can potentially be grounds for a speedy trial motion later in the case. An accused service member has a right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 707. R.C.M. 707 establishes specific time limits for bringing an accused to trial.
The speedy trial clock under R.C.M. 707 generally begins at the moment of pretrial confinement or the preferral of charges. The government is then typically required to bring the accused to trial within 120 days. However, certain periods of delay can be excluded from this calculation if they are deemed reasonable and necessary. Delays associated with the Article 32 hearing can be excluded, but only if they are reasonable.
If the government is responsible for unreasonable delays in scheduling the hearing, such as repeatedly being unavailable without good cause or failing to produce essential witnesses in a timely manner, the defense can argue that this time should not be excluded from the speedy trial clock. The defense would need to document the delays and the reasons for them, often by making objections on the record during the scheduling process.
After referral to trial, if the 120-day clock has been exceeded after accounting for all reasonable delays, the defense can file a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. The military judge would then analyze the entire timeline, including the Article 32 phase, to determine how much of the delay is attributable to the government and whether it was reasonable. A finding of a speedy trial violation results in the dismissal of the charges.