Morel v. Wilkins

PARIENTE, J.,

specially concurring.

I fully concur in the majority’s conclusion that neither the Jimmy Ryce Act (Act) nor the Constitution requires the type of treatment Morel seeks as a non-committed detainee. I also agree with the majority that because Morel and his attorney have been the driving force behind his extended pretrial delay, relief is not warranted under the facts of this case. However, going forward, we cannot and should not tolerate inordinate delays in bringing Jimmy Ryce respondents to trial when, during that delay, the respondent remains in legal limbo as a precommitted…