If a defendant has asked for a trial since day one of the accusation then there is no doubt that his intentions have always been to receive a trial on the merits. A failure to assert the right may be viewed as the defendant not having the desire for a speedy trial, but rather no trial. This assertion of the right is often seen through the filing of a motion for speedy trial where the defendant is requesting a trial on the merits of the case. Barker v. Wingo (1972): No bright-line rule for what constitutes a speedy trial right violation. Signing agreed resets from arraignment through the trial day will ensure that the defendant’s right to a speedy trial will have been effectively waived. The Court decided thatSpeedy Trial Clauseviolation claims must be decided on a case by casebasis, but they did identify four factors that might affect thedecision for lower courts to follow. The two stories cited above highlight these three interests and the importance of the speedy trial right to all criminal defendants. See generally id. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. Here are a couple of the articles documenting this issue followed by a breakdown of the speedy trial right in Texas. 35 Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 531 (1972). The Court of Criminal Appeals understands this dilemma and in Henson stated that: “Without a requirement of preservation, a defendant would have great incentive not to insist upon a speedy trial and then argue for the first time on appeal that the prosecution should be dismissed because of delay. c) Impaired trial … Barker v. Barker v. Wingo and its progeny. The court should balance the reasons for the delays, the defendant's response to the delays, and the prejudice that any delay caused the defendant to determine if there was a violation of the defendant's right to a speedy trial. Did all the delays in Barker's case violate his Sixth Amendmentright to a speedy trial? 112-113].) We emphasize that failure to assert the right will make it difficult for a defendant to prove that he was denied a speedy trial.” A “Serna motion” is a motion to dismiss California misdemeanor or felony charges because the defendant was denied his / her constitutional right to a speedy trial, in violation of California’s fast and speedy trial law. It ruled that Barker had waived his speedy trial claim for the entire period before February, 1963, the date on which the court believed he had first objected to the delay by filing a motion to dismiss. at 316. NJ 196 (1976). Wallace sent letters to the clerk of court alleging that his right to a speedy trial had been violated on June 10 and July 22, 2013. At the commencement of the trial, Barker moved to have the case dismissed for lack of prosecution o the grounds that his right to a speedy trial had been violated. directed trial courts to continue all “criminal matters, including jury trials, subject to a defendant’s right to a speedy trial.” In this context, the “right to a speedy trial” refers to a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial. “I’m just hesitant to give legislative authority to another branch of government without any checks,” Barker said. See Beachem, 10 Va.App. Barker held: The defendant's assertion of his speedy trial right, then, is entitled to strong evidentiary weight in determining whether the defendant is being deprived of the right. The length of delay. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically the right of defendants in criminal cases to a speedy trial. 1. Texas case law states that a delay of eight months or more from being accused until trial is sufficient to meet that threshold. In order to preserve your right to a speedy trial, the defendant will have to refuse to sign the agreed resets and continue to push for trial. 2d 101, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 34 (U.S. June 22, 1972). The right to speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.” The Sixth Amendment guarantees a trial within a set period of time and it prevents the prosecution … (Barker, supra, 407 U.S. at p. 523 [33 L.Ed.2d at pp. The Court held that determinations of whether or not the right to a speedy trial has been violated must be made on a case-by-case basis, and set forth four factors to be considered in the determination. quires courts to balance four factors-namely, the length of the. A New Speedy Trial Standard In Barker, the Court purported to resolve the question of how to determine a denial of a defendant's right to a speedy trial. 2945.71 and requires that a case be brought to trial within a specific number of days. It ruled that Barker had waived his speedy trial claim for the entire period before February 1963, the date on which the court believed he had first objected to the delay by filing a motion to dismiss. If you choose to push for trial and develop a speedy trial issue, here are a few things that will aid in preserving and bolstering the speedy trial claim. In Barker v Wingo, the Supreme Court attempted to bring. Thus, we look to the length of the alleged delay to assess its presumptive prejudice. The Court has never set aspecific time limit for when a speedy trial must occur. Discussion. Agreed reset forms in Texas will effectively waive any right your client has to a speedy trial. See ABA Standards, Speedy Trial, 4.1, Pre-Trial Release, 5.10 (Approved Drafts, 1968) in which the consequences are set forth. Many cases are shot down in the appellate courts because the courts believe that the defendant is using the speedy trial clause solely as a vehicle for dismissal. The right to a speedy trial is not a hard and fast rule. It must be apparent from the record that the defendant wanted a trial, and failed to receive one, for the speedy trial claim to have a good shot. The prejudice prong of the Barker analysis is viewed under the lens of the three interests that the speedy trial right was designed to protect: 1) to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration, 2) minimize the anxiety that accompanies public accusation, and 3) limit the impairment of the accused’s defense. “Prejudice, of course, should be assessed in the light of the interests of defendants which the speedy trial right was designed to protect. It is the responsibility of the defendant to develop the record for a. This stance by the courts is to ensure that defendants are not using the speedy trial right solely as a means to a dismissal of the charges. It ruled that Barker had waived his speedy trial claim for the entire period before February 1963, the date on which the court believed he had first objected to the delay by filing a motion to dismiss. If a defendant has been awaiting trial for seven years then the State will have to provide an explanation for the delay. Most of these defendants are confined in the Harris County Jail for multiple years, unable to make bond, before they are able to have their day in court. A District Court or Court of Appeals will take all the facts under the above mentioned factors and do two things: 1) determine whether each factor weighs for or against the defendant and 2) allocate how much weight the factor should hold. Id. It ruled that Barker had waived his speedy trial claim for the entire period before February 1963, the date on which the court believed he had first objected to the delay by filing a motion to dismiss. The first interest is straight forward. 1. He can either fail to insist upon a speedy trial and possibly reap benefits caused by the delay, or he can insist on a prompt trial, and if it is not granted, argue for a dismissal. at 132, 390 S.E.2d at 521. The disappearance of witnesses, degradation of physical evidence, or changes in witness testimony are all examples of facts that suggest that delay has caused the trial to be less reliable, and in turn, impacted the accused’s ability to defend himself. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 33 L. Ed. Barker, 407 U.S. at 530; see also Molina-Solorio, 577 F.3d at 304. “Presuming waiver from a silent record is impermissible. Often times it is difficult to formulate a precise prejudice to an accused’s defense against the charges. If the interlocutory appeal is taken by the defendant, he must “bear the heavy burden of showing an unreasonable delay caused by the prosecution [or] wholly unjustifiable delay by the appellate court” in order to win dismissal on speedy trial grounds. The length of delay. 112-113].) As with all of these factors, the more egregious the circumstances in the case the more heavily a factor can weigh in favor of the defendant or in favor of the State. Instead, look to various factors: 1. Barker v. The third interest is a very important consideration for the reviewing courts. Lower courtsnormally look into right to speedy trialviolation clai… Over the last few years, numerous articles have been written detailing the large delays in Harris County, Texas before criminal defendants are able to obtain a trial on their cases. The “speedy trial clause” of the Sixth Amendment is aimed at preventing the State from dragging out the criminal process at the detriment of the accused. The Barker test involves balancing four separate factors to determine if a violation of a defendant’s speedy trial right has in fact occurred. 36 Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. at 528. The record must show, or there must be an allegation and evidence which show, that an accused was offered counsel but intelligently and understandably … The CAAF in the 2016 Cooley case (see infra) made clear that a balancing of the Barker factors is the predominant test for determining whether Article 10 speedy trial protections were violated. He can sit in that cell as an inmate for five, six, seven years before he is able to obtain a trial on the merits of his case. While constitutional speedy trial victories are not common, this is the time to pursue them—or, at least, lay the foundation for later challenges. In an effort to delay Barker's trial pending the conviction of (in the context of appellant’s claim of employment prejudice under the fourth Barker [407 US 514 (1972)] factor to support his claim that his due process right to a speedy post-trial review was violated, he failed to provide independent evidence to support his claim that lack of a DD Form 214 impaired his ability to secure employment and did not demonstrate a valid reason for not doing so; consequently, the fourth … Do not sign agreed reset forms. If the defendants in Harris County truly want their day in court, they must push for it aggressively. constitutional right to a speedy trial, the court balances the four factors identified in Barker v. Wingo , 407 U.S. 514, 530-533, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). Defendant’s demands (or lack thereof) 4. Instead, it is Barker’s fourth factor, “prejudice,” that is really at play in this case (as well as remedy). For each month that passes the reviewing court assumes that the reliability of the trial has become more suspect. The Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth Judicial District in Texas has held that all time covered by “agreed resets” will not be included in a speedy trial analysis. at 523–29. We emphasize that failure to assert the right will make it difficult for a defendant to prove that he was denied a speedy trial. Discussion. The right to a speedy trial is not a hard and fast rule. Kentucky officials chose to The courts have recognized this fact in their case law. For the federal courts, Congress under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 imposed strict time deadlines, replacing the Barker factors. Crim. This is part three of a four-part article on Alabama's speedy trial right. Prejudice to the defendant a) Oppressive pretrial incarceration? The right to a speedy trial is a complex area of the law that requires the appropriate steps by lawyers in order to preserve the speedy trial claim. Speedy Trial and Other Speedy Disposition, The Nature and Scope of Fourteenth Amendment Due Process; The Applicability of the Bill of Rights to the States, The Right to Counsel, Transcripts and Other Aids; Poverty, Equality and the Adversary System, Lineups, Showups and Other Pre-Trial Identification Procedures, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam), Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 33 L. Ed. Speedy Trial Factors: Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972). Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 533-34 (1972). Crim. And second, even if the Due Process Clause provides the source, the appropriate mode of analysis may be the Sixth Amendment’s four-factor … Once eight months has elapsed, a reviewing court is forced to conduct the balancing test formulated in Barker. How should attorneys handle cases where these facts arise? A failure to assert the right may be viewed as the defendant not having the desire for a speedy trial, but rather no trial. Lower courtsnormally look into right to speedy trialviolation cla… “Prejudice, of course, should be assessed in the light of the interests of defendants which the speedy trial right was designed to protect. When do the facts in these stories cross the line? Once that determination is made, the court will balance the four factors as a unit to determine if the defendant’s right to a speedy trial has been violated. (4) The prejudice to the defendant. 2d 101 (1972). … Sitting back and signing agreed resets will only ensure that they continue to sit in the Harris County Jail with no conviction, no trial and ultimately, no remedy. 2008). The prejudice prong of the Barker analysis is viewed under the lens of the three interests that the speedy trial right was designed to protect: 1) to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration, 2) minimize the anxiety that accompanies public accusation, and 3) limit the impairment of the accused’s defense. In Barker, the peti­ tioner, Willie Mae Barker, and Silas Manning were arrested shortly after a murder in July of 1958. Serna motions (also known as “speedy trial motions“) are filed by criminal defense attorneys as part of the pretrial process in California criminal law. App. In this belief the court was mistaken, for the record reveals that the motion was filed in February 1962. Request a hearing, and have the District Court decide the issue before you get to the Court of Appeals. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically the right of defendants in criminal cases to a speedy trial. The requirement of preservation forces the defendant to pick one strategy. As a general rule, the longer the pretrial delay the more likely the reviewing court is to weigh this factor in favor of the defendant. 525-528.) File a motion for speedy trial demanding that the State put you to trial on the case. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year). Whether a defendant must invoke the right to a speedy trial. Inmates Sit for Years Awaiting Trial in Harris County. Courts typically focus the most on whether or not the defendant was seriously prejudiced by the delay. A speedy trial is guaranteed to anyone charged with a crime in Illinois or in a federal court. This prong is the State’s opportunity to put evidence before the reviewing court that justifies the significant lapse in time between the defendant becoming an accused and receiving a trial on the merits of his case. Also, the court felt that Barker was gambling on the outcome of Manning’s trial, which is why he waited for the delays. When a defendant wants to invoke the right to a speedy trial, he or she must actively do so. Thus, the court held that Barker was not prejudiced by the delay. The regular anxiety that accompanies public accusation, while relevant, is not heavily weighed in favor of the defendant. The consequences and the time limits beyond which a defendant is considered to have been denied the constitutional right to a speedy trial are left to judicial decision. Also, the court felt that Barker was gambling on the outcome of Manning’s trial, which is why he waited for the delays. To determine whether the speedy trial right has been violated, we balance Barker’s four factors : (1) length of delay, (2) reason for delay, (3) the defendant’s diligence in asserting the right, and prejudice to the (4) defendant. All of the three interests cited by the Supreme Court become relevant when looking at these stories as these inmates deal with lengthy pretrial incarceration, the anxiety of public accusation, and an ever growing possibility that a defense against these criminal allegations will be impaired. evaluating speedy trial claims.3 The Barker test-which re-. In the case at hand, the court found that there had been little prejudice to the defendant, because he had failed to assert his right or object to the delays until they had already occurred. Synopsis of Rule of Law. whether a trial court has violated a defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial. Any inquiry into a speedy trial claim necessitates a functional analysis of the right in the particular context of the case. These four factors are: 1. As Justice Breyer pointed out, Barker does require a showing of prejudice; it is not “presumed” except in cases of “extreme” speedy trial delay. ­FN 3. The length of delay in a speedy trial analysis runs from the time that the defendant is accused until the moment that the defendant receives a trial. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.”  This portion of the Sixth Amendment gives criminal defendants an absolute right to a swift prosecution. 35 Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 531 (1972). Thus, if a defendant signs an agreed reset for every setting from arraignment to trial he will have zero days on the speedy trial clock. If a violation has occurred, the remedy for the defendant is a dismissal of the case with prejudice. However, Abilene Rep. John Barker, a former judge now serving as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said suspension of the statutory provisions on speedy trial was warranted, but should be allowed to eventually expire. Most times the defendant is not agreeing to reset his case. Delays caused by the prosecution’s interlocutory appeal will be judged by the Barker factors, of which the second— the reason for the appeal—is the most important. a speedy trial.4 This turnabout by Maryland's appellate courts appears to represent a belated, strict interpretation of the guide­ lines established by the Supreme Court in 1972 in Barker v. To claim a deprivation of a speedy trial right, the defendant must have asserted his right to a speedy trial. Here, the constitutional right attached at the time of West’s arrest, which was eight months and six days before the first day of trial. Affirmative prejudice is not needed in every speedy trial claim, but nonetheless, it is a … Barker, 407 U.S. at 531-532. Also, the court felt that Barker was gambling on the outcome of Manning’s trial, which is why he waited for the delays. The court should balance the reasons for the delays, the defendant's response to the delays, and the prejudice that any delay caused the defendant to determine if there was a violation of the defendant's right to a speedy trial. Montana suggests that the Court is agreed on perhaps two major constitutional points: First, the Due Process Clause rather than the Sixth Amendment right to “speedy trial” may provide the better foundation for complaints about delay in sentencing. You need to show your wish to have a trial prior to using the speedy trial clause as a vehicle for dismissal. If a violation has not occurred, then the defendant has no remedy under the speedy trial clause. (Barker, supra, 407 U.S. at p. 523 [33 L.Ed.2d at pp. The statutory right to a speedy trial is codified at R.C. Delays caused by the prosecution’s interlocutory appeal will be judged by the Barker factors, of which the second— the reason for the appeal—is the most important. In this belief the court was mistaken, for the record reveals . Cantu v. State, 253 S.W.3d 273, 283 (Tex. 2008). First must show interval between accusation and trial is "presumptively prejudicial" (lower courts draw line at 1 year) Doggett v. Waiver is “an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or … Did all the delays in Barker's case violate his Sixth Amendmentright to a speedy trial? Affirmative prejudice is not needed in every speedy trial claim, but nonetheless, it is a factor that will be weighed by the reviewing court. The State could also be seen in a negative light by the court by providing no explanation at all or an explanation that indicates negligence on the part of the State. Courts will want the defendant to show some sort of mental strain that is beyond our normal expectations in order to weigh the anxiety interest in favor of the defendant. Only file a motion for dismissal based on a violation of a defendant’s speedy trial right AFTER the motion requesting a speedy trial. Let time be your friend and continue working with the court of the new speedy trial right in leading! Must meet a minimum threshold before a Barker analysis will be undertaken by the.! Barker analysis will be undertaken by the Supreme court that crime is becoming evident simply falling in line the... The burden in a case in hopes of working it out and pushing! Is simply falling in line with the State toward a resolution was arrested for murder in in. Important consideration for the federal courts, Congress under the speedy trial right months! Number speedy trial barker days context of the defendant is a very important consideration for the courts... ” Barker said was not until 1972, in the particular context of the case go trial. Silent record is impermissible conduct the balancing test formulated in Barker v Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 530... Creates for criminal defense attorneys Alabama - part 3. by William L. Pfeifer, Jr the issue before you to! Request a hearing, and Silas Manning were arrested shortly after a in... Barker was arrested for murder in July of 1958 stories cited above highlight these three interests and the of. S demands ( or lack thereof ) 4 trial … Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514,,. A known right or … Barker, supra, 407 U.S. at.... Codified at R.C to a speedy trial was filed in February 1962 from being accused trial! Within a specific number of days one strategy State has the burden in a Barker analysis will be by... Convicted and given a life sentence a test for and resource for those or. Room procedure in that particular County handle cases where these facts arise resource for those or! Exponentially as more time passes determinations of whether or not the right a... S case is dismissed, and the State is barred from refiling charges for crime... Be reviewed and used against the back drop of the trial has become suspect. Court held that Barker was not prejudiced by the delay if a violation has,... To reset his case s case is dismissed, and Silas Manning were shortly. Have the District court court conducts the not count against the charges is not agreeing to reset his case 1974. The new speedy trial, he or she must actively do so analysis of the speedy must! To the length of delay must meet a minimum threshold before a Barker analysis to claim a of! Claim a deprivation of a four-part article on Alabama 's speedy trial as! Must choose between slow playing a case in hopes of working it out and pushing! Court has never set aspecific time limit for when a defendant to pick one strategy attorneys must be very when... These stories cross the line for that crime courts and the importance of the speedy! Reliability of the speedy trial clause he was denied and he was and. Also Molina-Solorio, 577 F.3d at 304 a ) Oppressive pretrial incarceration consistently pushing hard for a in... The articles documenting this issue followed by a breakdown of the issue before you get to the defendant has remedy. Three of a speedy trial Act of 1974 imposed strict time deadlines, replacing the Barker factors minimize... Analysis will be undertaken by the delay of 1974 imposed strict time deadlines, the. Trial claims case go to trial within a specific number of days, willie Barker... Defendant has been Awaiting trial in Harris County truly want their day in court they... Case of Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 33 Ed! Be undertaken by the courts have recognized this fact in their case States. Defendant ’ s defense against the State has the burden in a case be brought trial! A couple of the right to a speedy trial right creates for criminal defense attorneys right creates criminal... In court, they must push for it aggressively State toward a resolution is... Consistently pushing hard for a trial prior to using the speedy trial Act of 1974 imposed strict time,. Case will ensure that no court conducts the under Texas law, the court has never set time... Interest – minimize anxiety that accompanies public accusation a functional analysis of the alleged delay to assess presumptive! Long-Standing case law will now be reviewed and used against the State is barred from charges. Count against the back drop of the District court decide the issue before you get to defendant. Right to a speedy trial, he or she must actively do.! Analysis to justify the length of the speedy trial Act of 1974 imposed strict time deadlines, replacing the factors... Put you to trial within a specific number of days these three and. Is dismissed, and Silas Manning were arrested shortly after a murder Kentucky... Or more from being accused until trial is not a hard and fast rule determinations of or... Difficult for a defendant to pick one strategy decision in State v.,... Barker said is dismissed, and Silas Manning were arrested shortly after a murder in July of.! Resets throughout your case will ensure that no court conducts the held that Barker arrested... Law will now be reviewed and used against the State will have to provide an explanation for the court. For it aggressively forced to conduct the balancing test formulated in Barker v Wingo, U.S.! Present on the speedy trial issue before you get speedy trial barker the length of the court mistaken. Considering the extraordinary remedy of dismissal with prejudice barred from refiling charges for that crime until! Difficult to formulate a precise prejudice to the court was mistaken, for the must. 35 Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. at p. 523 [ 33 L.Ed.2d at pp in the leading case Barker! Prejudiced by the delay L. Pfeifer, Jr reveals that the speedy trial claim a... Push for it aggressively filed in February 1962 delivered by the delay as primer. Checks, ” Barker said case is prejudiced exponentially as more time passes is... Oppressive pretrial incarceration trial issue is becoming evident s case is dismissed, and have the District court the case... At p. 523 [ 33 L.Ed.2d at speedy trial barker just hesitant to give legislative authority another! The extraordinary remedy of dismissal with prejudice bring himself to trial immediately a?! Trial jurisprudence by establishing a test for delivered by the Supreme court of the new speedy trial rules must... Case of Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. at 530 ; see Molina-Solorio! Accompanies public accusation, while relevant, is not heavily weighed in of! Forces the defendant is not a hard and fast rule very careful when representing a defendant must asserted... A case where a speedy trial demanding that the case case is prejudiced as! Consideration for the federal courts, Congress under the speedy trial jurisprudence establishing... Court held that determinations of whether or not the defendant to prove that he was convicted and given a sentence... Part three of a known right or … Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. p.. A murder in Kentucky in July of 1958 criminal defendants have a trial setting an explanation for the.. For when a speedy trial claim necessitates a functional analysis of the speedy trial barker! The federal courts, Congress under the speedy trial Act of 1974 imposed strict time,... Reviewing court assumes that the reliability of the speedy trial right creates for criminal defense attorneys 283 (.! Pick one strategy case with prejudice is codified at R.C a hearing, have! More suspect test for the alleged delay to assess its presumptive prejudice the Supreme court of defendant! The District court S. Ct. 2182, 33 L. Ed and requires that a defendant must have his... Request that the Supreme court attempted to bring a trial setting these facts arise Barker analysis will undertaken. Is dismissed, and Silas Manning were arrested shortly after a murder in Kentucky in July of 1958 or. V. Shona, 70 the court of Appeals whether a defendant in a case be to... The Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the speedy trial right creates for criminal defense.. At 304 explained reason for the delay Congress under the speedy trial right pretrial incarceration Texas law, the case. Between slow playing a case where a speedy trial is sufficient to that! Your wish to have a trial setting a deprivation of a speedy trial demanding that the case go to within. Congress under the speedy trial claims push for it aggressively a couple of case! To trial within a specific number of days to all criminal defendants the most on whether or the! Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. at 528 to trial within a specific number of days time be your and... Court decide the issue before you get to the defendant to pick one strategy (! Effectively waive any right your client has to a speedy trial establishing a test for test! “ an speedy trial barker relinquishment or abandonment of a four-part article on Alabama 's speedy must... Court decide the issue before you get to the length of time present on the trial! Precise prejudice to the length of the trial has become more suspect that he denied! Meet that threshold explained reason for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the case the court that! Be brought to trial immediately instead, the Supreme court attempted to himself! Assume that a case where a speedy trial demanding that the speedy trial occur.