Brief Fact Summary. Petitioner brought this action to have his conviction overturned when, after sixteen (16) continuances, over a five year period, he was finally tried and convicted for murder.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. While there is a right to a speed trial, it is incumbent upon a defendant to assert that his right has been compromised should he not get one.
Any inquiry into a speedy trial claim necessitates a functional analysis of the right in the particular context of the case.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Whether a defendant must invoke the right to a speedy trial.
Held. In its opinion, the Court used a four-factor balancing test to determine if the right to a speedy trial had been denied:
The Length of the Delay: the court concedes that five years a great time for delay
The governmental reasons for delay: to determine to delay in order to get a better witness against the defense is not a good reason; however, to do so because of witness availability is
The defendant’s responsibility to assert his rights
prejudice to the defendant
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. Also, the court felt that Barker was gambling on the outcome of Manning’s trial, which is why he waited for the delays. Thus, the court held that Barker was not prejudiced by the delay.
Discussion. When a defendant wants to invoke the right to a speedy trial, he or she must actively do so.