(As with other rights, these rights sometimes require active defense by civil rights organizations, nor are they completely absolute.)
If you're found guilty in a trial, you get a 2-4 times longer sentence than the plea deal would have given.
So the theoretical right to a trial remains, but exercising that right is heavily penalized. To me that means the right is for practical purposes no longer exists.
My being able to opt to voluntarily testify doesn't mean the right to remain silent doesn't exist. We'd have no rights by your definition.
Another angle is that plead bargains are necessary to put as many people in jail as we do.
The judicial system would completely break down if it needed to have 50x as many trials.
Yes. I'd argue that's not universally or even mostly a good thing.
The right exists whether or not your state has legislation defining a timeframe, too.
The nuance is the US court system allows additional punishment if a defendant chooses to go to trial. Also, plea bargaining usually involves lots of prosecutor bluffing before they have to show discovery which is the same time they can “throw the book at the defendant” (overload the charges beyond what they can actually prove to a jury).
It’s also worth mentioning that the speedy trial can sometimes come with strings attached (as Georgia’s statute which has been recently discussed ad nauseum in the cases of 2 of the 19 2020-electoral-college-RICO defendants)
In practice, 98% of criminal cases in the federal courts end with a plea bargain.
https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-crim...