For months, James Grandberry sat in a jail cell with little more than a pencil and a persistent sense of urgency. He wasn’t just fighting the 14 felony charges leveled against him; he was fighting for the basic constitutional right to have a lawyer. In the American legal system, a preliminary hearing is typically required within 10 days of a charge. For Grandberry, that window stretched into a 14-month odyssey of delays.
Now, Grandberry’s case has moved to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, transforming a local drug trafficking prosecution into a high-stakes test of the Sixth Amendment. The core of the dispute is not whether Grandberry is innocent or guilty of his alleged crimes, but whether a systemic failure to provide legal counsel should result in the total dismissal of criminal charges.
Grandberry is a central figure in a sweeping investigation into a drug ring operating between Chicago and Green Bay. Prosecutors describe the case as the state’s first wiretap investigation specifically targeting fentanyl, a probe that has led to charges against at least 47 individuals. Grandberry faces 14 counts, including the manufacture and delivery of fentanyl, cocaine and amphetamines. He was arrested on July 11, 2023, and formally charged roughly two weeks later.
A Systemic Breakdown in Counsel
The legal machinery of the state ground to a halt almost immediately after Grandberry’s charges were filed. Before an attorney was finally appointed, his preliminary hearing was postponed 10 separate times. The reason was not a lack of will from the court, but a lack of available lawyers.
This delay is not an isolated incident but a symptom of a deepening crisis in Wisconsin’s public defense system. In Brown County, the shortage of qualified attorneys has reached a breaking point. In 2022, a group of eight current and former inmates filed a lawsuit seeking a court order to mandate the quicker appointment of counsel. The crisis is further illustrated by the case of Jordan Leavy-Carter, who is charged in connection with the shooting death of a 5-year-old; the state public defender’s office reportedly made over 5,000 contacts over a year in a failed attempt to secure an attorney for him.
Grandberry’s attorney, Joseph Bugni, argues that this is a statewide epidemic. In a final response filed with the court, Bugni noted that Grandberry’s experience—spending over a year in jail without the guidance of a lawyer—is repeated “every day and in every county.”
The Legal Precedent: State v. Nhia Lee
The defense is leaning heavily on the precedent set by the case of Nhia Lee. In that matter, the courts ruled that Lee’s rights had been violated after he was jailed for 113 days without a preliminary hearing. While Lee’s wait was significant, it was a fraction of the 14 months Grandberry endured.
The Lee decision established a five-pronged approach for circuit courts to determine if postponing a preliminary hearing is appropriate. In Grandberry’s case, the defense argues that the state’s failure to meet these standards is so egregious that the only remedy is dismissal. Because this is a matter of constitutional law, Grandberry filed an “interlocutory appeal”—a rare mechanism that allows a higher court to rule on a specific legal issue while the rest of the case is still pending.
| Case Detail | Nhia Lee Case | James Grandberry Case |
|---|---|---|
| Wait Time for Hearing | 113 Days | ~14 Months |
| Outcome/Status | Charges Dismissed (later refiled) | Pending Court of Appeals |
| Legal Core | Due Process/Right to Counsel | 6th Amendment Violation |
The State’s Defense Against Dismissal
The Attorney General’s office does not dispute that “procedural errors” occurred in Grandberry’s case. However, they argue that these errors should not lead to the dismissal of charges in a major fentanyl trafficking investigation. The state contends that creating a rule where charges are automatically dismissed due to attorney shortages would be counterproductive and legally unsound.
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has entered the fray via a “friend of the court” brief, siding with the defense. They argue that when the state cannot provide a timely defense attorney, the appropriate remedy is the dismissal of charges, as it forces the state to address the systemic failures of the public defender system rather than allowing defendants to languish in jail.
For now, the case remains in a legal limbo. While Grandberry has finally secured counsel and pleaded not guilty, the appellate court must decide if the state’s inability to find a lawyer for 14 months constitutes a violation of the Constitution significant enough to void the prosecution.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For legal matters, consult a licensed attorney.
The Court of Appeals has not scheduled oral arguments and is expected to publish a decision in the coming months. Meanwhile, Grandberry is scheduled to return to court on June 22 for a status conference.
Do you believe systemic delays in legal representation should lead to the dismissal of criminal charges? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
