BENNINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and a group of retired state court judges have filed briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the Vermont Supreme Court's March decision to free a man convicted of assault because the state violated his right to a speedy trial.

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case of Michael Brillon in January. The court will hear arguments from the state, represented by the Bennington County State's Attorney's office, and Middlebury attorney William Nelson, who is representing Brillon.

But the court will also consider amicus curiae briefs. Amicus curiae, Latin for "friend of the court," are briefs that may be filed by those who are not parties in the case but have an interest.

Two amicus briefs have been filed on Brillon's behalf. A brief jointly filed by the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers mostly attempts to refute the claim by the state in its brief that Brillon is responsible for delaying his own trial while the retired state judges' brief argues that the state is violating procedure by using arguments that were not brought to the Vermont Supreme Court.

Brillon was charged in July 2001 after he struck a woman with whom he had a relationship. Because Brillon had previous felony convictions, he was charged as a habitual offender, which added the possibility of life imprisonment to the penalty.

In June 2004, Brillon was tried and convicted. He was later sentenced to serve 12 to 20 years in prison.

The Bennington County State's Attorney's office, in its brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, said Brillon caused the delays that were counted against the state and led to his release.

The response from the ACLU and the criminal defense lawyers' group said that argument had already been refuted.

"… (T)he Vermont Supreme Court expressly found that Brillon had not acted with improper intent when he repeatedly sought counsel who would prepare adequately for a trial in which he faced a possible life sentence. … Any dispute over Brillon's intent presented a question of fact, which the Vermont Supreme Court resolved in Brillon's favor," the brief said.

The brief also contradicts the Bennington County State's Attorney's office that called Brillon's case "a first in the history of American jurisprudence."

"Courts applying Barker — including the Second, Third, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, multiple state courts and the Armed Forces Court of Appeals — have held that delays caused by breakdowns in the appellate defender system weigh against the state," the brief said.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1972 issued a decision in Barker v. Wingo which set a four-part test to determine whether a defendant's speedy trial rights had been violated.

The brief from the ACLU and criminal defense lawyers' group provides details of Brillon's case which holds that Brillon was represented several times by court-appointed lawyers who did nothing to prepare for his case. At least two lawyers left the case because a contract with the state had run out. Brillon had sent several letters or made statements to the court asking for his trial to begin, according to the brief.

The brief cites decisions in a number of states, including California, Georgia, Delaware, Utah and Connecticut, which attributed delays to the state.

The retired state judges' brief said that the state had accepted responsibility for trial delays before the Vermont Supreme Court and never argued that Brillon had caused them. Because the Vermont Supreme Court has not ruled on that question, the brief said, it's improper for the U.S. Supreme Court to look at it.

"In effect, the state is asking (the U.S. Supreme Court) to modify its settled precedent so that a state may concede the correctness of a legal principle to its highest court and then, once the highest court adopts that principle in light of the parties' agreement, turn around and ask (the U.S. Supreme Court) to overrule the judgment of the state's highest court based on the state's flipping position," the brief said.

Nelson said earlier this month it was possible the different arguments may be because the Brillon case was argued to the Vermont Supreme Court by the Vermont attorney general's office but the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is being handled by the Bennington County State's Attorney's office.

The Bennington County State's Attorney's office was joined by several amicus briefs: one signed by almost 40 states' attorneys general; one prepared at the Vermont Law School, joined by more than 15 victims' rights groups; one from the National Governors' Association; and one from the solicitor general of the United States.

Contact Patrick McArdle at patrick.mcardle@rutlandherald.com.

This article was edited Dec. 26, 2008, to clarify the headline showing the ACLU and others support the Vermont Supreme Court decision.