The Official 2026 BYU Football Thread

[Shaka]

Why do you think it is near zero?

Judge Winward basically said to them, I'm dismissing the case on my own motion because I can. I'm doing this because when the prosecution files, they should be ready to take the case to trial. This is especially when there was an underlying year long investigation. They had to know that Kingston might push for his right to a speedy trial. They should have let the alleged victim know that she needed to be ready to testify within months of the filing.

I'm going on the opinion of a trial lawyer buddy who is following the case. He agrees with the judge but also thinks there are enough problems with the alleged victim's potential testimony that she doesn't want to testify. Refiling would also trigger a hearing on whether the accused's right to a speedy trial had been violated. He thinks that unless a major piece of evidence pops up, this one is toast.

[MartyFunkhouser]

I'm going on the opinion of a trial lawyer buddy who is following the case.

That is a good opinion to go on.

[Copelius]

I defended a case similar to this some years back. To the Utah County Attorney's office's credit, they dismissed on their own when they started to have issues with the alleged victim, rather than drag the case out. Similar to Judge Wiinward, I have a hard time with prosecutors who are not ready to go to trial really soon after filing. It was a rude awakening for me switching from prosecutor in Alaska to defense attorney in Utah early in my career. Up north we had 120 days to get a case to trial, and we actually had some cases get dismissed on us. Down here, speedy trial is more of a guideline and this is the first time that I have seen a judge hold a prosecutor's feet to the fire on speedy trial rights.

[Moliere]

My hope is the whole thing gets completely dropped and he ends up at USU.

[MartyFunkhouser]

I defended a case similar to this some years back. To the Utah County Attorney's office's credit, they dismissed on their own when they started to have issues with the alleged victim, rather than drag the case out. Similar to Judge Wiinward, I have a hard time with prosecutors who are not ready to go to trial really soon after filing. It was a rude awakening for me switching from prosecutor in Alaska to defense attorney in Utah early in my career. Up north we had 120 days to get a case to trial, and we actually had some cases get dismissed on us. Down here, speedy trial is more of a guideline and this is the first time that I have seen a judge hold a prosecutor's feet to the fire on speedy trial rights.

My experiences with Judge Winward have all been good. I think he did the right thing holding their feet to the fire. It is one thing when the defendant needs more time. It is another when the prosecutor is claiming to need more time. They should be ready to go when they file.

[Copelius]

My experiences with Judge Winward have all been good. I think he did the right thing holding their feet to the fire. It is one thing when the defendant needs more time. It is another when the prosecutor is claiming to need more time. They should be ready to go when they file.

100% agree. To the point that I would mirror AK's Crim Rule 45 implementing the 120 day speedy trial rights. I would even be good with WY's 180 day rule.

[All-American]

I did some work with the prosecutor's office in Cook County, Illinois. The right to a speedy trial was a joke there. Defendants were held in lockup for years until they pled guilty and were released for time already served.

Sometimes Defendants would threaten to invoke the right to a speedy trial. The trial court would tell them if they did that, the trial would be held that afternoon, so they had better be ready for it. Of course, the defendant would then back down. Neither the prosecutor nor the public defender would speak up, because they knew the judge was just bluffing and that this was just how the game was played-- and because they know that if defendants started asserting their right to speedy trials on a broad level, the criminal justice system in Chicago would collapse.

[frank ryan]

I did some work with the prosecutor's office in Cook County, Illinois. The right to a speedy trial was a joke there. Defendants were held in lockup for years until they pled guilty and were released for time already served.

Sometimes Defendants would threaten to invoke the right to a speedy trial. The trial court would tell them if they did that, the trial would be held that afternoon, so they had better be ready for it. Of course, the defendant would then back down. Neither the prosecutor nor the public defender would speak up, because they knew the judge was just bluffing and that this was just how the game was played-- and because they know that if defendants started asserting their right to speedy trials on a broad level, the criminal justice system in Chicago would collapse.

What would happen if multiple defendants invoked that right all at once? In an organized manner?

[All-American]

What would happen if multiple defendants invoked that right all at once? In an organized manner?

The entire criminal judicial system in cook county would collapse.

And you better believe everybody associated with the system knows it.