How Long From Arraignment to Trial: Federal and State Rules

The time from arraignment to trial usually runs from a few weeks to several months, and in complex cases well over a year. Federal court sets a baseline of 70 days from indictment or first appearance to trial, but a long list of exclusions routinely pushes the calendar much further. State deadlines vary by charge and by whether the defendant is in custody. And most cases never reach trial: roughly 90 to 95 percent resolve through plea agreements, so the window often closes with a negotiated guilty plea rather than a verdict.¹

The Federal 70-Day Rule

Under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, a federal trial must begin within 70 days of whichever comes later: the filing of the indictment or the defendant’s first court appearance. The same statute prevents the government from rushing things: unless the defendant agrees in writing, trial cannot start less than 30 days after the defendant’s first appearance with counsel.²

So the theoretical federal window is 30 to 70 days. Very few cases actually run on that schedule. The Act contains a long list of excludable periods that pause the clock, and once those are applied, most federal cases take considerably longer on the calendar than the statutory count suggests.

The 70-day rule sits on top of a constitutional floor. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a “speedy and public trial,” and that right applies in every state through the Fourteenth Amendment.³⁴ The Constitution does not name a number of days; the Speedy Trial Act does.

State Timelines Vary Widely

Each state sets its own deadlines, and the differences are significant. Most states key the timeline to two variables: the severity of the charge and whether the defendant is in custody or out on bail. A jailed defendant generally gets a shorter deadline, because the stakes of delay are higher when someone is sitting in a cell.

For misdemeanors, state deadlines commonly land between 30 and 90 days, with incarcerated defendants at the shorter end. For felonies, the window is wider, typically 60 to 180 days from arraignment, and some states allow longer still. These are starting points. The same kinds of exclusions that extend federal timelines apply in state court too, so a case with a nominal 90-day limit can easily consume six months of calendar time or more.

What Happens Between Arraignment and Trial

Several procedural stages sit between arraignment and trial, and each one consumes time. Understanding them explains why even a straightforward case rarely reaches a jury in the statutory minimum.

Preliminary Hearing

In felony cases, a preliminary hearing often follows arraignment. The prosecution has to show enough evidence to establish probable cause that a crime occurred and the defendant committed it. In federal court, the hearing must happen within 14 days if the defendant is in custody, or within 21 days if released.⁵ Defendants can waive it, and many do, especially after a grand jury has already returned an indictment.

Discovery

Discovery is the formal exchange of evidence. The prosecution turns over documents, physical evidence, and reports it intends to use at trial, along with lab and expert results.⁶ Under Brady v. Maryland, prosecutors also have a constitutional duty to disclose evidence favorable to the defendant, whether asked or not.⁷

This is where complex cases start to drag. A drug conspiracy with wiretaps, financial records, and cooperating witnesses generates far more material than a simple assault with two eyewitnesses. Defense counsel needs time to review it all, and disputes over what the government must hand over can trigger their own hearings.

Pre-Trial Motions

Before trial, either side can ask the judge to resolve legal questions that shape how the trial will go. The most common is a motion to suppress evidence, arguing that police obtained something through an unconstitutional search or interrogation and it should be excluded. Other motions seek outright dismissal or a change of venue when pretrial publicity has been heavy.

Every motion pauses the speedy trial clock from the day it is filed until the court resolves it.² This is one of the biggest reasons calendar time far exceeds the statutory day count. A single contested suppression motion can add weeks or months for briefing, an evidentiary hearing, and a ruling.

Pre-Trial Conferences and Plea Talks

Courts typically hold one or more pre-trial conferences to set deadlines and push cases toward resolution. Plea negotiations run alongside every other stage. An estimated 90 to 95 percent of criminal cases in federal and state courts resolve through plea agreements rather than trials.¹ Time the court spends considering a proposed plea agreement is itself excludable under the federal Speedy Trial Act.²

What Pauses the Speedy Trial Clock

The federal Speedy Trial Act lists specific categories of delay that do not count toward the 70-day limit, and most state statutes contain similar exclusions. The main ones:

Pre-trial motions, from filing through resolution, regardless of which side filed.²
Mental competency evaluations ordered by the court.
Interlocutory appeals of pre-trial rulings.
Periods when a key witness or the defendant is unavailable.
Delays tied to a co-defendant whose own clock has not run, as long as no motion to sever has been granted.
Time the court is considering a proposed plea agreement.

The “Ends of Justice” Continuance

The most powerful extender is the “ends of justice” continuance. A judge can grant additional time whenever the benefits of delay outweigh the defendant’s and the public’s interest in a speedy trial, and the judge must state the reasons on the record. The statute lists factors: whether proceeding on time would produce a miscarriage of justice, whether the case is unusually complex due to the number of defendants or novel legal issues, and whether denying the continuance would deprive a defendant of adequate time to find counsel or prepare a defense.²

One limitation matters: a judge cannot grant this kind of continuance simply because the court’s calendar is congested or the prosecutor failed to prepare.² Still, these continuances are granted liberally in practice, and they are a major reason federal cases routinely take many months from arraignment to trial despite the 70-day statute.

Why Calendar Time Exceeds Statutory Time

The statutes describe how much non-excluded time the government gets. They do not describe how many calendar days will pass. A case with a 70-day speedy trial limit can easily take six months or longer once motion practice, continuances, scheduling conflicts, and discovery disputes are counted. Felony trials take longer than misdemeanor trials. Multi-defendant and forensic-heavy cases take longer still.

Court congestion plays a role the statute officially discounts but that shapes reality. Heavy dockets mean hearings scheduled weeks out, slower rulings on motions, and bumped trial dates. The clock may be paused during most of that, but the defendant still waits.

For someone sitting in jail awaiting trial, calendar time matters far more than legal time. A defendant on bail may be content to let counsel take months building the strongest possible case. A defendant unable to make bail has a powerful incentive to push for speed, even at the cost of less preparation.

How a Defendant Can Influence the Timeline

Defendants are not passive on scheduling. The most significant choice is whether to “waive time,” meaning to give up the right to trial within the speedy trial deadline. This is common and not usually a sign of trouble. A thorough investigation takes time. The defense may need to locate its own witnesses, hire expert consultants, or work through large volumes of discovery. A longer window also creates room for plea negotiations, and if a favorable deal seems possible, rushing to trial makes little sense.

A defendant who wants to force the pace can refuse to waive time and insist the government meet its deadline. That pressures the prosecution, but it also risks going to trial with a defense team that has not had enough time to investigate. The decision is a genuine tradeoff between speed and thoroughness.

One procedural detail catches people off guard: under the federal Speedy Trial Act, a defendant who fails to move for dismissal before trial begins or before entering a guilty plea permanently waives the right to seek dismissal on speedy trial grounds.⁸ The objection has to be raised in advance; a defendant cannot sit through a trial, lose, and then argue the trial should never have happened.

What Happens if the Deadline Is Missed

If the government fails to bring a defendant to trial within the statutory deadline after all excludable time is counted, the defendant can move to dismiss. The court must grant dismissal, but the critical question is whether it is with or without prejudice.⁸

Dismissal with prejudice is permanent; the government cannot refile the same charges. Dismissal without prejudice lets the government start over with a new indictment and a reset clock. Under the federal Act, the court weighs three factors in choosing: the seriousness of the offense, the circumstances that caused the delay, and the impact reprosecution would have on the administration of justice.⁸

Dismissal with prejudice is more likely when the delay was deliberate or negligent than when it was caused by circumstances outside the government’s control. A serious violent felony is less likely to be permanently dismissed than a minor charge. Successful speedy trial dismissals of any kind are uncommon, because most delays are covered by one or more statutory exclusions and defense teams themselves frequently waive time.

1
Bureau of Justice Assistance. Plea and Charge Bargaining Research Summary
2
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 3161 – Time Limits and Exclusions
3
Legal Information Institute. U.S. Constitution: Sixth Amendment
4
Constitution Annotated. Overview of Right to a Speedy Trial
5
U.S. Department of Justice. Preliminary Hearing
6
Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 16 – Discovery and Inspection
7
Justia Law. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
8
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 3162 – Sanctions