Montana Jury Health
Return to Jury Health Project main page.
The right of trial by jury is secured to all and shall remain inviolate. But upon default of appearance or by consent of the parties expressed in such manner as the law may provide, all cases may be tried without a jury or before fewer than the number of jurors provided by law. In all civil actions, two-thirds of the jury may render a verdict, and a verdict so rendered shall have the same force and effect as if all had concurred therein. In all criminal actions, the verdict shall be unanimous.
—Montana Constitution Declaration of Rights; Article 2, Section 26
State Law Resources
- Constitution: Montana Constitution
- Code/Statutes: Montana Code Annotated
- Legislature: Montana Legislature
- Judiciary: Montana Judicial Branch
- Rules of Criminal Procedure: Montana Code Annotated Title 46. Criminal Procedure
- Rules of Civil Procedure: Circuit Court, District Court
COVID-19 Information
Status as of 14 November 2020.
Rules by Jury Type
| Criminal Trial by Jury | Currently no state prohibitions on criminal trial by jury. |
| Civil Trial by Jury | Currently no state prohibitions on civil trial by jury. |
| Grand Juries | Currently no state prohibitions on grand juries. |
Additional information available from the Montana Judiciary:
- COVID-19 Memos from Chief Justice McGrath (in yellow box on Montana Judiciary home page)
- Local Rules on Coronavirus for District Court
Speedy Trial
Time Limits
- for speedy trial:
- No specific amount of time defined in MCA.
- Time spent in mediation may not be counted in determining whether a defendant's right to a speedy trial has been violated.
- Montana case law holds that the right to speedy trial is relative and depends on circumstances, but does establish bright-line criteria that trigger further analysis of other factors.
- City of Billings v. Bruce (Montana Supreme Court, 1998)
- length of delay: 200 days to trigger further speedy trial analysis, regardless of reason for delay
- reason for delay: 275 days or more of delay attributable to the State is presumptively prejudicial, the burden shifts to the State to demonstrate that the defendant has not been prejudiced by the delay
- State v. Ariegwe (Montana Supreme Court, 2007)
- length of delay: reaffirms 200-day threshold to trigger further speedy trial analysis, adds details on when the speedy trial clock starts
- reason for delay: replaced the 275-day bright-line approach of Bruce with the notion that the presumption that pretrial delay has prejudiced the accused exists as of the 200-day trigger date for speedy trial analysis (at which point it is minimal) and intensifies (escalates) over time; the presumption of prejudice does not establish mutually exclusive burdens of proving and disproving prejudice, but rather both sides must present evidence and the judge will weigh it
- passage of time alone is insufficient to establish a violation of the right to a speedy trial
- City of Billings v. Bruce (Montana Supreme Court, 1998)
COVID-19-Related Changes to Speedy Trial Rules
Status as of 14 November 2020.
- No known changes to speedy trial rules.
