Case Title: Henderson v. Commonwealth

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2016-SC-000484-MR

State: kentucky

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Date: 2018-12-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
RENDERED: DECEMBER 13, 2018 TO BE PUBLISHED 2016-SC-000484-MR CLEOSEY DARNELL HENDERSON, II APPELLANT V. ON APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE BARRY WILLETT, JUDGE NO. l l -CR-003874 COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE KELLER AFFIRMING A Je ffe r so n Co unt y jur y c o nv ic t e d Cl e o se y Dar ne l l He nd e r so n, II o f Assaul t , fir st d e g r e e , Se xual Abuse , fir st d e g r e e , and Unl aw ful Impr iso nme nt , fir st d e g r e e . The jur y al so fo und He nd e r so n w as a pe r sist e nt fe l o ny o ffe nd e r (PFO) in t he fir st -d e g r e e . He w as se nt e nc e d , pe r t he jur y’s r e c o mme nd at io n, t o a t o t al se nt e nc e o f sixt y ye ar s. He nd e r so n no w appe al s his c o nv ic t io n and se nt e nc e as a mat t e r o f r ig ht o n se v e r al g r o und s. Fo r t he fo l l o w ing r e aso ns, w e affir m his c o nv ic t io n. I. BACKGROUND Al ic e , 1 He nd e r so n’s ne ig hbo r , w al ke d o v e r t o his ho me t o r e que st mo ne y t hat she al l e g e d He nd e r so n o w e d he r . Aft e r answ e r ing t he d o o r and e ng ag ing in so me c o nv e r sat io n, He nd e r so n g r abbe d Al ic e by t he t hr o at and at t ac ke d he r . She l o st c o nsc io usne ss and , at so me po int , aw o ke , t ie d up in He nd e r so n’s be d r o o m. Al ic e l o st c o nsc io usne ss mul t ipl e t ime s t hr o ug ho ut t he e nc o unt e r but t e st ifie d t hat He nd e r so n had r e mo v e d he r pant s and pant ie s and d ig it al l y pe ne t r at e d he r v ag ina. He nd e r so n c ut Al ic e mul t ipl e t ime s w it h a shar p o bje c t t hat Al ic e c o ul d no t spe c ific al l y id e nt ify in he r t e st imo ny. Al ic e w as ul t imat e l y abl e t o fr e e he r se l f and l e av e t hr o ug h a w ind o w , d ur ing w hic h he r l e g s w e r e c ut fr o m t he br o ke n g l ass. She e sc ape d t o a ne ig hbo r ’s ho me w he r e she o bt aine d he l p and w as t ake n t o t he ho spit al fo r t r e at me nt . She had mul t ipl e c ut s and br uise s fr o m t he assaul t . He nd e r so n w as ar r e st e d in No v e mbe r o f 2011, ye t his t r ial d id no t o c c ur unt il June o f 2016. Fo r t his r e aso n, o n appe al , he ar g ue s t hat his c o nst it ut io nal r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial , und e r bo t h t he Unit e d St at e s Co nst it ut io n 2 and t he Ke nt uc ky Co nst it ut io n,3 w as v io l at e d and he is e nt it l e d 1 In ac c o r d anc e w it h t his Co ur t ’s pr o c e d ur e s, w e shal l ad d r e ss t he v ic t im using a pse ud o nym t o pr o t e c t he r id e nt it y. 2 “In al l c r iminal pr o se c ut io ns, t he ac c use d shal l e njo y t he r ig ht t o a spe e d y and publ ic t r ial , by an impar t ial jur y o f t he St at e and d ist r ic t w he r e in t he c r ime shal l hav e be e n c o mmit t e d , w hic h d ist r ic t shal l hav e be e n pr e v io usl y asc e r t aine d by l aw , and t o be info r me d o f t he nat ur e and c ause o f t he ac c usat io n; t o be c o nfr o nt e d w it h t he w it ne sse s ag ainst him; t o hav e c o mpul so r y pr o c e ss fo r o bt aining w it ne sse s in his fav o r , and t o hav e t he Assist anc e o f Co unse l fo r his d e fe nc e .” U.S. Co nst , ame nd . VI. 3 “[H]e shal l hav e a spe e d y publ ic t r ial by an impar t ial jur y o f t he v ic inag e [.]” Ky. Co nst . 11. t o a d ismissal w it h pr e jud ic e . He nd e r so n al so al l e g e s pr e jud ic ial e r r o r in: (1) t he t r ial c o ur t ’s fail ur e t o appo int subst it ut e c o unse l ; (2) t he t r ial c o ur t ’s fail ur e t o ad v ise He nd e r so n o f his r ig ht t o st and -by o r hybr id c o unse l ; (3) t he t r ial c o ur t ’s d e nial o f He nd e r so n’s mo t io n t o suppr e ss; (4) t he e xc l usio n o f e v id e nc e und e r t he Rape Shie l d Law ; and (5) t he t r ial c o ur t ’s inac c ur at e c ur t ail ing o f He nd e r so n’s r ig ht t o r e c al l a w it ne ss. Fo r t he fo l l o w ing r e aso ns, w e find no r e v e r sibl e e r r o r and affir m t he jud g me nt o f t he Je ffe r so n Cir c uit Co ur t . A t ime l ine o f t his c ase is int e g r al t o t he spe e d y t r ial anal ysis. As suc h, t he Co ur t must , in d e t ail , d e sc r ibe e xac t l y w hat o c c ur r e d d ur ing He nd e r so n’s c ase and t he d il at o r y nat ur e o f any d e l ay. Timeline He nd e r so n w as ind ic t e d o n De c e mbe r 28, 2011 and ar r aig ne d in Januar y o f 2012. His jur y t r ial w as sc he d ul e d at t hat t ime fo r Jul y 17, 2012. His fir st appo int e d publ ic d e fe nd e r w as pr e se nt w it h him at a bo nd r e d uc t io n he ar ing o n Januar y 27, 2012, but he had t o be appo int e d a ne w at t o r ne y w he n his o r ig inal c o unse l l e ft t he DPA. The ne w l y-appo int e d at t o r ne y appe ar e d w it h him at his ne xt pr e t r ial c o nfe r e nc e o n Apr il 23, 2012. It se e me d t hat it w as t his c o ur t ’s pr ac t ic e , fr o m t he r e c o r d and fr o m c o unse l ’s st at e me nt s at appe ar anc e s, t o sc he d ul e fe w e r pr e t r ial c o nfe r e nc e s unt il t r ial . Thus, fr o m He nd e r so n’s c o ur t r e c o r d , it w as no t unusual , abse nt mo t io ns o r issue s, fo r t w o t o fo ur mo nt hs t o pass be t w e e n appe ar anc e s in t he c ir c uit c o ur t . Whil e t hat d e l ay is no t ne c e ssar il y e xc usabl e , t he d e sc r ipt io n o f l o c al pr ac t ic e 4 is impo r t ant t o und e r st and ing t he c o nt e xt o f He nd e r so n’s c ase . The fir st suppr e ssio n mo t io n w as fil e d o n May 30, 2012 and se t fo r he ar ing o n June 22, 2012. Rat he r t han ut il izing t hat d at e fo r t he he ar ing , d e fe nse c o unse l , w it h ag r e e me nt fr o m t he Co mmo nw e al t h, mo v e d t o r e mand t he jur y t r ial d at e and ut il ize t hat d at e as t he suppr e ssio n he ar ing . The r e aso n is unc l e ar fr o m t he r e c o r d , but t hat d at e w as al so r e sc he d ul e d , and t he suppr e ssio n he ar ing w as he l d o n Se pt e mbe r 11, 2012. The par t ie s se t t he jur y t r ial fo r May 7, 2013. The c o nt e xt o f t he May d at e is al so impo r t ant ; t he d isse nt fo c use s o n t he l e ng t h o f t ime be t w e e n t r ial d at e s and t he ine v it abl e d e l ay t o He nd e r so n’s c ase . Whil e at t e mpt ing t o r e sc he d ul e d at e s, t he t r ial c o ur t , pr o se c ut o r , and d e fe nse at t o r ne y al l had bur d e nso me sc he d ul e s w it h w hic h t o ar r ang e po ssibl e d at e s fo r He nd e r so n’s t r ial . Bo t h t he pr o se c ut o r and d e fe nse at t o r ne y w e r e w o r king o n o t he r mur d e r c ase s and t he r e w as at l e ast o ne r e fe r e nc e t o a c apit al c ase . The t r ial c o ur t al so had a c umbe r so me sc he d ul e w it h mul t ipl e c iv il jur y t r ial s; e ac h t ime t he par t ie s had t o r e sc he d ul e , t he jud g e c o nt ac t e d his assist ant o n spe ake r pho ne t o t e l l him t he ne xt po ssibl e d at e . This May 7, 2013 d at e w as t he fir st t ime t hat al l t he par t ie s w e r e av ail abl e fo r ano t he r t r ial . Al t ho ug h t his is a l o ng pe r io d , t his c o nt e xt must be appr e c iat e d and und e r st o o d . The par t ie s w e r e no t be ing int e nt io nal l y 4 The Je ffe r so n Cir c uit Co ur t is l o c at e d in t he mo st po pul o us c o unt y in Ke nt uc ky. d il at o r y but w e r e , inst e ad , at t e mpt ing t o c o o pe r at e w it h t hr e e d iv e r se and busy sc he d ul e s t o ac c o mmo d at e He nd e r so n’s ne e d fo r ac c e ss t o t he c o ur t . He nd e r so n’s at t o r ne y fil e d so me unc o mpl ic at e d mo t io ns o v e r t he ne xt fe w mo nt hs, inc l ud ing a se c o nd suppr e ssio n mo t io n. Aft e r t hat mo t io n w as fil e d , t he par t ie s at t e mpt e d t o sc he d ul e a se c o nd he ar ing . The l e ad d e t e c t iv e fo r t he Co mmo nw e al t h w as unav ail abl e unt il t he t r ial d at e as she w as o n me d ic al l e av e . The d isse nt ing o pinio n st at e s t hat t he Co mmo nw e al t h w as unabl e t o pr o c e e d t o he ar ing o n Fe br uar y 11, 2013 aft e r t he fil e d mo t io n. Ho w e v e r , fr o m r e v ie w o f t he r e c o r d , Fe br uar y 11 w as a pr e t r ial c o nfe r e nc e at w hic h t ime t he par t ie s w e r e t o sc he d ul e a he ar ing be c ause o f He nd e r so n’s r e c e nt l y fil e d mo t io n (fil e d o n Fe br uar y 5, 2013). The Co mmo nw e al t h w as r e ad y t o pr o c e e d w it h t he jur y t r ial d at e in May; it simpl y w as unabl e t o pr o d uc e it s w it ne ss before t hat t ime . The par t ie s ag r e e d t o c o nv e r t t he t r ial d at e t o a suppr e ssio n he ar ing and r e sc he d ul e t he t r ial . Thus, t he pr o se c ut io n, fr o m t his r e v ie w o f t he r e c o r d , ne v e r r e que st e d a c o nt inuanc e fo r it s pr e par at io n but me r e l y c o nse nt e d t o d e fe nse r e que st s fo r suc h. On Mar c h 4, 2013, He nd e r so n fil e d a d e mand fo r a spe e d y t r ial . In May, al t ho ug h t he r e aso ns ar e unc l e ar fr o m t he r e c o r d , t he suppr e ssio n he ar ing w as r e sc he d ul e d fo r June 26, 2013 and a jur y t r ial d at e w as sc he d ul e d fo r Oc t o be r 28, 2013. The suppr e ssio n he ar ing o c c ur r e d o n t he June 26 d at e . In Oc t o be r , and fo r r e aso ns t hat ar e o nc e ag ain unc l e ar fr o m t he r e c o r d , t he c o ur t e nt e r e d an o r d e r r e sc he d ul ing t he jur y t r ial fo r June 3, 2014. On No v e mbe r 11, 2013, He nd e r so n fil e d a pro se mo t io n t o d ismiss fo r v io l at ing his r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial . The he ar ing , fr o m pl e ad ing s, w as r e sc he d ul e d by t he t r ial c o ur t t w ic e . It final l y o c c ur r e d o n May 7, 2014. By t hat t ime , He nd e r so n had fil e d a se c o nd pro se mo t io n fo r an e xpe r t w it ne ss. At t he May 7 he ar ing , He nd e r so n fir st st at e d t hat he w o ul d l ike t o d ismiss his at t o r ne y and hav e a ne w l aw ye r appo int e d . The jud g e aske d him t o fil e t hat in w r it ing so t hat t he c o ur t c o ul d ad d r e ss it l at e r but spe c ific al l y po int e d o ut t o He nd e r so n t hat suc h a mo t io n w o ul d d e finit e l y d e l ay t he t r ial e v e n l o ng e r , in spit e o f his r e que st fo r a spe e d y t r ial . He nd e r so n st at e d t hat t he r e que st w as ne c e ssar y and “it w o ul d just hav e t o happe n.” Base d o n t he se mo t io ns r e quir ing an ex parte he ar ing , t he c o ur t sc he d ul e d t ho se mo t io ns t o be he ar d o n May 12, 2014. On May 12, He nd e r so n fil e d his pro se mo t io n fo r c o nfl ic t c o unse l and t he he ar ing w e nt fo r w ar d . He nd e r so n t he r e st at e d t hat he “r e fuse [d ]” t o g o t o t r ial w it h his appo int e d at t o r ne y. The c ir c uit c o ur t c o nv e r t e d t he June t r ial d at e t o a pr e t r ial c o nfe r e nc e and st at e d it w o ul d hav e al l r ul ing s o n pe nd ing mo t io ns r e ad y and t he par t ie s w o ul d mo v e fo r w ar d ac c o r d ing l y. On June 3, t he c ir c uit c o ur t ag ain st at e d t hat t he d r aft s o n r ul ing s w e r e c o mpl e t e but he ne e d e d t o pass t hir t y d ays t o finish. The ne xt appe ar anc e w as sc he d ul e d fo r Jul y 2 but , fo r r e aso ns unkno w n fr o m t he r e c o r d , t he ne xt appe ar anc e w as o n Aug ust 8, 2014. At t hat t ime , t he jud g e t e nd e r e d o r d e r s d e nying bo t h mo t io ns t o suppr e ss, t he mo t io n fo r c o nfl ic t c o unse l , and t he mo t io n fo r e xpe r t w it ne ss. He st at e d t hat he st il l ne e d e d t o issue a r ul ing o n t he mo t io n t o d ismiss (t he subse que nt o r d e r d e nying w as e nt e r e d Se pt e mbe r 16, 2014). The ne xt pr e t r ial w as se t fo r Oe t o be r 2, 2014. The par t ie s be g an sc he d ul ing a ne w t r ial but Henderson int e r r upt e d and r e que st e d t hat t he y w ait t o r e sc he d ul e t he jur y t r ial unt il t he ne xt pr e t r ial c o nfe r e nc e . On Se pt e mbe r 30, He nd e r so n fil e d a pro se mo t io n t o d ismiss and ano t he r pro se mo t io n t o d ismiss w as fil e d o n Oc t o be r 2, 2014. The r e w as a pr e t r ial c o nfe r e nc e o n Oc t o be r 2, as sc he d ul e d , and a ne w jur y t r ial w as sc he d ul e d fo r June 23, 2015. At t hat appe ar anc e , He nd e r so n st at e d ag ain t hat he w o ul d no t g o t o t r ial w it h his appo int e d at t o r ne y. He nd e r so n fil e d a pro se mo t io n t o r e c o nsid e r suppr e ssio n o n Oc t o be r 12, 2014. The par t ie s appe ar e d in c o ur t o n No v e mbe r 14, at w hic h t ime d e fe nse c o unse l r e que st e d t hat t he par t ie s hav e mo r e “fac e t o fac e ” t ime w it h t he c o ur t . The ne xt st at us w as sc he d ul e d fo r Januar y 16, 2015. The jur y t r ial r e maine d sc he d ul e d fo r June 23, 2015. The c o ur t e nt e r e d an o r d e r d e nying t he mo t io n t o d ismiss o n De c e mbe r 22, 2014. On Januar y 16, 2015, t he par t ie s appe ar e d fo r a st at us. Bo t h at t o r ne ys st at e d t he r e w e r e no issue s t o ad d r e ss. He nd e r so n int e r r upt e d and st at e d t hat Go d had t o l d him t o info r m t he c o ur t t hat he w o ul d no l o ng e r ne e d an at t o r ne y. He r e it e r at e d t hat he w ant e d t o d ismiss his appo int e d c o unse l and t hat “t he Lo r d w il l fig ht my c ause ” and “t he Lo r d w il l be my d e fe nse .” The c o ur t d id no t que st io n muc h fur t he r at t hat t ime but r e que st e d t hat He nd e r so n pl ac e his mo t io n in w r it ing fo r t he c o ur t t o ad d r e ss. On Fe br uar y 6, 2015, he fil e d a pro se mo t io n t o r e c o nsid e r , ac c using t he Co mmo nw e al t h o f l ying in a pr e v io us r e pl y me mo r and um. He nd e r so n fil e d his pro se mo t io n t o d ismiss c o unse l o n Fe br uar y 11 and se nt an ad d it io nal pro se l e t t e r t o t he c o ur t o n Fe br uar y 23. In his mo t io n t o d ismiss c o unse l , He nd e r so n st at e d “t he Lo r d is no w t he d e fe nd ant ’s d e fe nse .” The t r ial c o ur t c o nd uc t e d a he ar ing o n t he mo t io n t o d ismiss appo int e d c o unse l o n Apr il 7, 2015. At t hat t ime , t he jud g e que st io ne d He nd e r so n fur t he r o n e xac t l y w hat he me ant by t he Lo r d be ing his d e fe nse . He aske d him pr ac t ic al que st io ns l ike w ho w o ul d be que st io ning t he w it ne sse s, w ho w o ul d be at be nc h c o nfe r e nc e s, e t c . His appo int e d at t o r ne y at t e mpt e d t o c l ar ify fur t he r , asking him w he t he r t he que st io ns w o ul d be c o ming o ut o f He nd e r so n’s mo ut h o r no t . He nd e r so n r e fuse d t o answ e r , st at ing t hat his at t o r ne y w as mo c king him. He w as unabl e t o answ e r t he se pr ac t ic al que st io ns, me r e l y saying t hat “t he Lo r d w il l be my d e fe nse ” and t hat he had “no ne e d fo r c o ur t appo int e d c o unse l .” He al so st at e d t hat Go d had be e n “r e v e al ing t hing s ” t o him t hr o ug ho ut t his e nt ir e pr o c e ss and Go d t o l d him t hat he d id no t ne e d a l aw ye r . The c o ur t said it w o ul d issue a d e c isio n o n t he mo t io ns. On June 1, 2015, t he par t ie s appe ar e d ag ain and ad d r e sse d a mo t io n in l imine fr o m t he Co mmo nw e al t h. At t hat t ime , He nd e r so n o nc e ag ain int e r r upt e d . This t ime , he o bje c t e d t o t he d e t e c t iv e be ing pr e se nt at t he Co mmo nw e al t h ’s t abl e , at t hat appe ar anc e and at t r ial . He said she sho ul d no t be pr e se nt at al l and r e pe at e d l y insist e d t hat she w as “no t in my d isc o v e r y mo t io n.” On June 2, 2015, t he t r ial c o ur t e nt e r e d an o r d e r fo r a c o mpe t e nc y e v al uat io n upo n it s o w n mo t io n, as w e l l as an o r d e r d e nying t he mo t io n t o 8 d ismiss. Upo n t he c o mpe t e nc y o r d e r , He nd e r so n w as ad mit t e d t o Ke nt uc ky Co r r e c t io nal Psyc hiat r ic Ce nt e r (“KCPC”) o n Jul y 6, 2015 and e v al uat e d . The par t ie s appe ar e d in c o ur t ag ain o n Aug ust 3, 2015 and sc he d ul e d a c o mpe t e nc y he ar ing fo r Se pt e mbe r 22, 2015. De fe nse c o unse l w as inst r uc t e d t o c he c k w it h t he KCPC e v al uat o r fo r av ail abil it y; o n Aug ust 15, an o r d e r w as e nt e r e d r e sc he d ul ing t he he ar ing fo r Oc t o be r 15, 2015, pr e sumabl y d ue t o a sc he d ul ing c o nfl ic t (ho w e v e r , t his is no t c l e ar fr o m t he r e c o r d ). He nd e r so n pr o c e e d e d t o fil e mo r e pro se mo t io ns: o pe n r e c o r d r e que st s t o t he c l e r k fo r v ic t im hist o r y and c ase hist o r y (fil e d Se pt e mbe r 8, 2015); a fe d e r al l aw suit ag ainst his at t o r ne y and t he publ ic d e fe nd e r ’s o ffic e (fil e d Se pt e mbe r 10, 2015); a l e t t e r t o t he c o ur t info r ming it o f t he fe d e r al suit (fil e d Oc t o be r 7, 2015); and ano t he r d e mand fo r spe e d y t r ial (fil e d Oc t o be r 15, 2015). The c o mpe t e nc y he ar ing w as he l d o n Oc t o be r 15; t he t r ial c o ur t said it w o ul d issue a r ul ing and He nd e r so n st at e d t hat he had fil e d ano t he r pro se mo t io n fo r c o nfl ic t c o unse l base d o n t he ne w l y-fil e d fe d e r al l aw suit . On Oc t o be r 27, t he c o ur t e nt e r e d o r d e r s find ing He nd e r so n c o mpe t e nt ; d e nying c o nfl ic t c o unse l ; and d e nying t he mo t io n t o r e c o nsid e r . The ne xt appe ar anc e w as No v e mbe r 3, 2015. At t hat t ime , t he at t o r ne ys ag r e e d t hat , g iv e n t he st at us o f al l o r d e r s, it w as ne c e ssaiy t o se t a jur y t r ial d at e . A juiy t r ial w as sc he d ul e d fo r June 6, 2016 and a final pr e t r ial c o nfe r e nc e w as se t fo r May 20, 2016. At t his t ime , He nd e r so n al so be l l ig e r e nt l y ad d r e sse d t he t r ial c o ur t , asking “ar e yo u e v e n r e ad ing t he se mo t io ns fo r r e al ?” Upo n r e spo nse . He nd e r so n al so r e spo nd e d ang r il y t hat he w o ul d g e t his c ase “r e v e r se d ” and e v e r yo ne w o ul d “be r ig ht bac k he r e .” The c o ur t e nd e d t he pr e t r ial c o nfe r e nc e . On Fe br uar y 26, 2016, He nd e r so n fil e d a pro se mo t io n t o r e pr e se nt himse l f and , o n Mar c h 4, 2016, fil e d a pro se mo t io n t o c hang e c o nd it io ns o f r e l e ase . The c o ur t he ar d par t ie s o n t he mo t io n t o w aiv e c o unse l o n Mar c h 28, 2016, and t he c o ur t c o nd uc t e d a Faretta inquir y.5 The t r ial c o ur t o ffe r e d He nd e r so n t he o pt io n o f hav ing his appo int e d c o unse l assist in subpo e nas, c l o t hing , and o t he r pr ac t ic al mat t e r s fo r t r ial . At fir st , bo t h He nd e r so n and his at t o r ne y ag r e e d t o suc h a sit uat io n. But , t he n He nd e r so n ag ain st at e d t hat he w o ul d n’t be ne e d ing an at t o r ne y, “Go d is [his] d e fe nse ... [and he ’d ] be just fine .” Whe n aske d w he t he r suc h a d e c isio n w as in his be st int e r e st , He nd e r so n r e spo nd e d , “If I’m g o nna g o d o w n, g o nna g o d o w n fig ht ing fo r myse l f. So ye s, it ’s in my be st int e r e st .” The c o ur t e nt e r e d an o r d e r t he same d ay al l o w ing He nd e r so n t o r e pr e se nt himse l f. On Apr il 7, 2016, He nd e r so n fil e d a pro se pe t it io n fo r a w r it o f pr o hibit io n, pr o hibit ing any fur t he r pr o se c ut io n. On Apr il 12, he al so fil e d a r e spo nse t o t he Co mmo nw e al t h ’s mo t io n in l imine . On May 20, 2016, t he par t ie s appe ar e d fo r t he final pr e t r ial c o nfe r e nc e be fo r e t r ial o n June 6. At t hat t ime , He nd e r so n spe c ific al l y r e que st e d t hat t he jur y t r ial be c o nt inue d unt il t he Co ur t o f Appe al s had mad e a d e c isio n o n his pe t it io n fo r w r it . The c o ur t said it w o ul d pr o c e e d as t ho ug h it w as g o ing t o t r ial and pass t he d e c isio n unt il t hat t ime . He nd e r so n o bje c t e d fo r t he r e c o r d t o g o ing fo r w ar d . The t r ial d id o c c ur 5 See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). 10 o n June 6 and d e fe nd ant w as c o nv ic t e d by t he jur y o f assaul t , fir st d e g r e e ; se xual abuse , fir st d e g r e e ; unl aw ful impr iso nme nt , fir st d e g r e e ; and pe r sist e nt fe l o ny o ffe nd e r , fir st d e g r e e . The jur y r e c o mme nd e d an e nhanc e d se nt e nc e o f sixt y ye ar s. He nd e r so n w as fo r mal l y se nt e nc e d o n Aug ust 5, 2016. II. ANALYSIS A. Right to Speedy Trial This Co ur t anal yze s al l e g e d v io l at io ns o f t he r ig ht t o spe e d y t r ial und e r t he fo ur -fac t o r Barker test. Dunaway v. Commonwealth, 60 S.W.3d 563, 569 (Ky. 2001) (c it ing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972)). The fo ur fac t o r s und e r t his t e st ar e : “(1) t he l e ng t h o f d e l ay, (2) t he r e aso n fo r t he d e l ay, (3) t he d e fe nd ant ’s asse r t io n o f his r ig ht , and (4) t he pr e jud ic e t o t he d e fe nd ant c ause d by t he d e l ay.” Dunaway, 60 S.W.3d at 569. “No sing l e o ne o f t he se fac t o r s is d e t e r minat iv e by it se l f.” Id. (quo t ing Gabow v. Commonwealth, 34 S.W.3d 63, 70 (Ky. 2000)). “We r e g ar d no ne o f t he fo ur fac t o r s ... as e it he r a ne c e ssar y o r suffic ie nt c o nd it io n t o t he find ing o f a d e pr iv at io n o f t he r ig ht o f spe e d y t r ial . Rat he r , t he y ar e r e l at e d fac t o r s and must be c o nsid e r e d t o g e t he r w it h suc h o t he r c ir c umst anc e s as may be r e l e v ant .” Stacy v. Commonwealth, 396 S.W.3d 787, 795 (Ky. 2013) (quo t ing Barker, 407 U.S. at 533). 1. Length of Delay The fift y-six-mo nt h d e l ay in t his c ase is c l e ar l y pr e sumpt iv e l y pr e jud ic ial . Und e r o ur pr e c e d e nt , t hat pr e sumpt iv e nat ur e is c l e ar . The d isse nt c har ac t e r ize s He nd e r so n’s c ase as no t “c o mpl e x.” Ho w e v e r , t his c ase pr e se nt e d a w e al t h o f physic al e v id e nc e , as w e l l as DNA e v id e nc e . It w as a v io l e nt c r ime 11 w it h a v ic t im t e st ifying t o d iffic ul t fac t s. Giv e n o ur pr e c e d e nt , w e d o no t c har ac t e r ize t his c ase as “simpl e .” See Stacy, 396 S.W.3d at 796 (find ing an ar so n and r io t c ase “se r io us and o f mo d e r at e c o mpl e xit y”). He nd e r so n pr e se nt e d a c o mpl e t e l y c o nt r ad ic t o r y nar r at iv e , t hus l e nd ing far mo r e impo r t anc e t o t he physic al and sc ie nt ific e v id e nc e fo r t he jur y. As suc h, t his c ase c anno t be l abe l e d “simpl e and st r aig ht fo r w ar d .” Ho w e v e r , t his d o e s no t c hang e t he fac t t hat a fift y-six-mo nt h d e l ay is pr e sumpt iv e l y pr e jud ic ial . 2. Reason for Delay The r e ar e “t hr e e c at e g o r ie s o f r e aso ns fo r d e l ay: (1) a ‘d e l ibe r at e at t e mpt t o d e l ay t he t r ial in o r d e r t o hampe r t he d e fe nse ’; (2) a ‘mo r e ne ut r al r e aso n suc h as ne g l ig e nc e o r o v e r c r o w d e d c o ur t s ’; and (3) ‘a v al id r e aso n, suc h as a missing w it ne ss.’” Dunaway, 60 S.W.3d at 570 (quo t ing Barker, 407 U.S. at 531. The se “d iffe r e nt r e aso ns sho ul d be al l o c at e d d iffe r e nt w e ig ht s[.]” Dunaway, 60 S.W.3d at 570 (c it ing Barker, 407 U.S. at 531). A d e l ibe r at e at t e mpt t o d e l ay t he t r ial in o r d e r t o hampe r t he d e fe nse sho ul d be w e ig ht e d he av il y ag ainst t he g o v e r nme nt . A mo r e ne ut r al r e aso n suc h as ne g l ig e nc e o r o v e r c r o w d e d c o ur t s sho ul d be w e ig ht e d l e ss he av il y but ne v e r t he l e ss sho ul d be c o nsid e r e d sinc e t he ul t imat e r e spo nsibil it y fo r suc h c ir c umst anc e s must r e st w it h t he g o v e r nme nt r at he r t han t he d e fe nd ant . Final l y, a v al id r e aso n, suc h as a missing w it ne ss, sho ul d se r v e t o just ify appr o pr iat e d e l ay. Stacy, 396 S.W.3d at 796 (quo t ing Miller v. Commonwealth, 283 S.W.3d 690, 700 (Ky. 2009)). Lo o king at t he t ime l ine o f t his c ase , t he r e ar e t hr e e majo r r e aso ns fo r d e l ay: (1) t he t r ial c o ur t ’s t ar d ine ss in r e spo nd ing t o He nd e r so n’s mo t io ns t o suppr e ss; (2) He nd e r so n’s insist e nc e upo n fil ing nume r o us and 12 r e pe t it iv e pro se mo t io ns, w hil e st il l be ing r e pr e se nt e d by appo int e d c o unse l ; and (3) He nd e r so n’s c o nt inuo us d e mand s fo r a ne w appo int e d at t o r ne y. In Stacy, t his Co ur t po int e d t o t he d e fe nd ant ’s “abund anc e o f pro se mo t io ns.” Stacy, 396 S.W.3d at 797 (e mphasis ad d e d ). “Whil e simul t ane o usl y pur suing his mo t io n fo r a spe e d y t r ial , Appe l l ant fil e d t w o subse que nt mo t io ns r e que st ing ad d it io nal d isc o v e r y, a mo t io n fo r ac c e ss t o t he c r ime sc e ne , and a mo t io n fo r a Faretta he ar ing .” Id. (c it at io n o mit t e d ). Re c o g nizing t hat a d e fe nd ant has a r ig ht t o fil e suc h mo t io ns, t he Co ur t st il l r e c o g nize d t hat “t he t r ial c o ur t must hav e suffic ie nt t ime t o d ispo se o f t he m be fo r e t r ial .” Id. He r e , He nd e r so n c o nt inue d t o insist upo n a spe e d y t r ial ye t al so fil e d mul t ipl e pro se mo t io ns, o ft e n in d upl ic at e o r t r ipl ic at e . Many mo t io ns w e r e base d upo n t he e xac t same g r o und s and o ffe r e d no t hing ne w fo r t he t r ial c o ur t e xc e pt t o issue ano t he r w r it t e n o r d e r . Muc h o f t he d e l ay t hr o ug ho ut He nd e r so n’s c ase st e mme d fr o m his c o nsist e nt , ye t o ft e n unfo und e d , insist e nc e upo n ne w appo int e d c o unse l . As Just ic e Hug he s no t e d in Goben v. Commonwealth, “|t ]he spe e d y t r ial c l ause d o e s no t g uar ant e e c o nt inuo us o r e ffe c t iv e r e pr e se nt at io n o r pr o mpt d isc o v e r y. To t he e xt e nt t hat Go be n’s r ig ht s t o t ho se t hing s w e r e v io l at e d , he may hav e o t he r r e c o ur se , but t he al l e g e d v io l at io ns w e r e no t t he r e sul t o f t r ial d e l ay and so d o no t ad d any w e ig ht t o Go be n’s spe e d y t r ial c l aim.” 503 S.W.3d 890, 910 (Ky. 2016). In Goben, muc h o f t he d e l ay w as c ause d by c o nfl ic t s and mo t io ns t o w it hd r aw base d o n c o nfl ic t s inv o l v ing mul t ipl e c o -d e fe nd ant s. See id. at 909. He r e , t he d e l ay w as e v e n mo r e unque st io nabl y at t r ibut abl e t o He nd e r so n: 13 d e spit e an at t o r ne y t hat se e me d t o t ake mul t ipl e st e ps t o pr o t e c t He nd e r so n’s r ig ht s (fil ing suppr e ssio n mo t io ns, spe aking t o e xpe r t s o n his be hal f w it ho ut be ing c har g e d by t ho se e xpe r t s, ne g o t iat ing o ffe r s w it h t he Co mmo nw e al t h, e nsur ing He nd e r so n w o ul d appe ar mo r e o ft e n in fr o nt o f t he t r ial c o ur t , and e v e n c o nt inuing t o ad v o c at e fo r t he po sit io ns He nd e r so n so ug ht d e spit e He nd e r so n’s c o nt inue d e ffo r t s t o “d ismiss ” him), He nd e r so n c o nt inue d t o at t e mpt t o fo r c e t he t r ial c o ur t ’s hand in r e t aining ne w c o unse l fo r him. It appe ar s, fr o m t he r e c o r d , hig hl y d o ubt ful t hat subst it ut e c o unse l w o ul d hav e be e n abl e t o t ake any fur t he r st e ps o n He nd e r so n’s be hal f o r sat isfy He nd e r so n w it h his o r he r d e fe nse . We must al so no t e t hat t he r e ar e t hr e e se par at e e nt it ie s w e must c o nsid e r fo r r e aso ns o f d e l ay: t he t r ial c o ur t , t he pr o se c ut io n, and t he n t he d e fe nd ant . He r e , w hil e t he r e w e r e d e l ays d ue t o t he t r ial c o ur t , t he r e w e r e no r e que st s fo r c o nt inuanc e by t he pr o se c ut io n. This fac t must al so be c o nsid e r e d in t he w e ig hing o f t he Bar ke r fac t o r s. In McDonald v. Commonwealth, t he Co ur t st at e d t hat “it is appar e nt t he Co mmo nw e al t h w as making a g o o d -fait h e ffo r t t o br ing Mc Do nal d t o t r ial . He r e Mc Do nal d d id no t o bje c t t o any o f t he c o nt inuanc e s. The r e c o r d is v ag ue as t o t he r e aso ns fo r many o f t he c o nt inuanc e s ...” 569 S.W.3d 134, 137 (Ky. 1978). The Co ur t fo und t hat Mc Do nal d d id no t ar g ue any o f t he spe c ific c o nt inuanc e s w e r e inappr o pr iat e and t hus he “par t ic ipat e d in t he d e l ay.” Id. Like w ise , it se e ms t hat t he pr o se c ut io n he r e pe r sist e d in a g o o d -fait h e ffo r t t o br ing He nd e r so n t o t r ial . He nd e r so n d id no t r aise any o bje c t io ns t o c o nt inuanc e s o f t he t r ial d at e at any 14 po int d ur ing t he pr o c e e d ing s. He c o mpl aine d o f d e l ays in his d e mand s fo r spe e d y t r ial and mo t io ns t o d ismiss fo r v io l at io ns o f suc h, ye t d id no t r aise o bje c t io ns w he n t he t r ial c o ur t c o nt inue d his t r ial . Ad d it io nal l y, sho r t l y be fo r e t he June 2016 t r ial d at e , He nd e r so n himse l f aske d fo r a c o nt inuanc e .6 He w ant e d t o c e ase any ac t iv it y in t he c ase unt il t he Co ur t o f Appe al s had issue d a r e spo nse o n his pe t it io n fo r w r it o f pr o hibit io n. This sho w s a c o mpl ic it y in t he d e l ay, o r an e ffo r t t o ut il ize suc h d e l ay t o his ad v ant ag e . At t he v e r y l e ast , it sho w s t hat his insist e nc e upo n a spe e d y t r ial w as l e ss t han g e nuine . The d isse nt st at e s t hat a “w ho l e ye ar o f d e l ay w as c ause d by t he t r ial c o ur t ’s unjust ifiabl e d e c isio n t o c o mpe l [He nd e r so n] t o submit t o a c o mpe t e nc y e v al uat io n.” The Co ur t c anno t ag r e e w it h t his asse ssme nt . We c anno t , fr o m t his r e c o r d , st at e t hat t he c o ur t ’s d e c isio n w as “unjust ifiabl e .” Ke nt uc ky Re v ise d St at ut e (KRS) 504.100 st at e s t hat if t he c o ur t , at any po int , “has r e aso nabl e g r o und s t o be l ie v e t he d e fe nd ant is inc o mpe t e nt t o st and t r ial , t he c o ur t shall appo int ” a pr o fe ssio nal t o e v al uat e t he d e fe nd ant ’s c o nd it io n. KRS 504.100(1) (e mphasis ad d e d ). This is a mand at o r y d ut y if t he c o ur t has r e aso nabl e g r o und s t o e v e n que st io n a d e fe nd ant ’s c o mpe t e nc e . Whil e t he d isse nt is w il l ing t o make t he l e ap t hat , g iv e n t he e nt ir e c o nt e xt o f t his c ase . 6 Ev e n o n t he mo r ning o f t r ial , He nd e r so n t o l d t he c o ur t t hat he fe l t t he c o ur t sho ul d c o nt inue t he t r ial be c ause he fe l t he had insuffic ie nt t ime t o pr e par e . Had t he c o ur t g r ant e d t his c o nt inuanc e , w o ul d He nd e r so n no w c l aim e r r o r and a fur t he r v io l at io n o f his r ig ht s? Thr o ug ho ut t r ial , he c o nt inue d t o insist he had insuffic ie nt t ime t o pr e par e his c ase . Cl e ar l y, He nd e r so n d id no t r e al l y w ant a spe e d y t r ial ; he w ant e d a d ismissal . 15 t he t r ial c o ur t ’s d o ubt s w e r e e nt ir e l y unfo und e d , a majo r it y o f t his Co ur t must d isag r e e w it h suc h a c o nc l usio n. “It is w it hin t he t r ial c o ur t ’s d isc r e t io n t o d e t e r mine w he t he r t he r e ar e ‘r e aso nabl e g r o und s ’ t o be l ie v e a d e fe nd ant may be inc o mpe t e nt t o st and t r ial .” Slone V. Commonwealth, 382 S.W.3d 851, 859 (Ky. 2012) (quo t ing Bishop v. Caudill, 118 S.W.3d 159, 161 (Ky. 2003)). “Ho w e v e r , o nc e fac t s kno w n t o t he t r ial c o ur t ar e suffic ie nt t o pl ac e a d e fe nd ant ’s c o mpe t e nc y at issue , an e v al uat io n and e v id e nt iar y he ar ing ar e mand at o r y.” Slone, 382 S.W.3d at 859 (quo t ing Bishop, 118 S.W.3d at 161; c it ing Gray v. Commonwealth, 233 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Ky. 2007)). Asid e fr o m t his st at ut o r y r ig ht , “t he Unit e d St at e s Co nst it ut io n, as a mat t e r o f d ue pr o c e ss, bar s t r ying a d e fe nd ant w ho is inc o mpe t e nt t o st and t r ial .” Woolfolk v. Commonwealth, 339 S.W.3d 411, 421 (Ky. 2011) (c it ing Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975)). “‘Ev id e nc e o f a d e fe nd ant ’s ir r at io nal be hav io r , his d e me ano r in c o ur t , and any pr io r me d ic al o pinio n o n c o mpe t e nc e t o st and t r ial ar e al l r e l e v ant fac t s fo r a c o ur t t o c o nsid e r ’ in r e ac hing it s d e c isio n.” Woolfolk, 339 S.W.3d at 422 (quo t ing Mills V. Commonwealth, 996 S.W.2d 473, 486 (Ky. 1999)). This Co ur t has r e c o g nize d a t r ial c o ur t ’s supe r io r po sit io n “t o o bse r v e [a d e fe nd ant ’s] c o nd uc t and d e me ano r ... and t o e v al uat e t he c ir c umst anc e s ...” Woolfolk, 339 S.W.3d at 423. The st at ut e and c o r r e spo nd ing pr e c e d e nt c r e at e a sig nific ant r e spo nsibil it y fo r a t r ial c o ur t ; upo n se e ing w hat it d e e ms, w it hin it s d isc r e t io n, as r e aso nabl e g r o und s t o que st io n c o mpe t e nc y, t hat c o ur t must o r d e r an 16 e v al uat io n. The d isse nt l o o ks t o t he e v al uat io n and po st -t r ial c ir c umst anc e s t o d e t e r mine t hat t he t r ial c o ur t w as unfo und e d in w hat it d e e me d “r e aso nabl e g r o und s ” t o que st io n c o mpe t e nc y. Ye t , t his is impr o pe r . We must l o o k at w hat w as be fo r e t he t r ial c o ur t at t he t ime it o r d e r e d an e v al uat io n: He nd e r so n had be g un spe aking in hype r -r e l ig io us spe e c h. He w as no t just spe aking o f a st r o ng fait h, a c har ac t e r t r ait w hic h sho ul d not l e ad t o c o mpe t e nc y que st io ns. He w as spe aking o f an aud ibl e v o ic e inst r uc t ing him as t o his d e fe nse . He nd e r so n, ar g uabl y, w as ac t ing c o nt r ar y t o his int e r e st s t o ac c o mmo d at e t he inst r uc t io ns o f t he “v o ic e ” he he ar d . He al so st at e d t hat t he v o ic e had be e n “r e v e al ing ” t hing s t o him t he e nt ir e t ime . This l ang uag e is, in it se l f, t r o ubl ing e no ug h. Ho w e v e r , t he t r ial c o ur t al so saw an inc r e asing ag g r e ssio n in He nd e r so n’s c o nd uc t , l o o king t o his ac c usat io ns ag ainst t he Co mmo nw e al t h and t he t r ial c o ur t . Ad d it io nal l y, he be g an making ho st il e o bje c t io ns at appe ar anc e s, suc h as st at ing t hat t he l e ad d e t e c t iv e sho ul d no t e v e n be pr e se nt at t he Co mmo nw e al t h ’s t abl e at any t ime d ur ing his pr o c e e d ing s. Giv e n al l t his info r mat io n and l o o king at t he se r io usne ss o f t he c har g e s and t he c o nst it ut io nal impe r at iv e t hat He nd e r so n be c o mpe t e nt t o fac e t ho se c har g e s, t he c o ur t ’s o r d e r w as no t unr e aso nabl e . A “v al id r e aso n, suc h as a missing w it ne ss, sho ul d se r v e t o just ify appr o pr iat e d e l ay.” Stacy, 396 S.W.3d at 796 (quo t ing Miller v. Commonwealth, 283 S.W.3d 690, 700 (Ky. 2009)). Ensur ing a d e fe nd ant ’s c o nst it ut io nal r ig ht t o be c o mpe t e nt is a “v al id r e aso n” and just ifie s r e aso nabl e d e l ay c o nne c t e d t o t ho se pr o c e e d ing s. 17 Thus, l o o king at t he t hr e e majo r c ause s o f d e l ay—t he t r ial c o ur t ’s l at e o r d e r s o n suppr e ssio n; He nd e r so n’s pro se mo t io ns; and He nd e r so n’s insist e nc e o n ne w c o unse l —mo st o f t he d e l ay w as c ause d by He nd e r so n himse l f. This Co ur t d o e s no t e xc use t he t r ial c o ur t ’s fail ur e t o pr o mpt l y r e spo nd t o He nd e r so n’s suppr e ssio n mo t io ns. This fac t o r must w e ig h he av il y ag ainst t he g o v e r nme nt . Ho w e v e r , t he c o mpe t e nc y e v al uat io n w as l e g al l y ne c e ssar y and a v al id r e aso n fo r d e l ay. Al l o t he r d e l ay w as c ause d by He nd e r so n’s o w n c o nd uc t . 3. Waiver and Assertion An asse r t io n o f t he r ig ht t o spe e d y t r ial “must be v ie w e d in l ig ht o f [d e fe nd ant ’s] o t he r c o nd uc t .” Dunaway, 60 S.W.Sd at 571 (quo t ing United State v. O’Dell, 247 F.3d 655, 671 (6t h Cir . 2001) (quo t ing United States v. Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. 302, 314 (1986))). “[I]f d e l ay is at t r ibut e d t o t he d e fe nd ant , t he n his w aiv e r may be g iv e n e ffe c t und e r st and ar d w aiv e r d o c t r ine .” McDonald, 569 S.W.2d at 137. In Dunaway, t he Co ur t d e t e r mine d t hat “six mo nt hs o f fr iv o l o us pe t it io ns by t he d e fe nd ant r e d uc e d t he sinc e r it y o f d e fe nd ant ’s asse r t io n o f his r ig ht .” 60 S.W.3d at 571. Al t ho ug h Dunaw ay r e fe r r e d t o d e l ays, he “ne v e r me nt io n[e d ] v o ic ing a sing l e o bje c t io n.” Id. “If a d e fe nd ant ac quie sc e s in a d e l ay, he c anno t be he ar d t o c o mpl ain abo ut t he d e l ay.” Id. (quo t ing Gabow, 34 S.W.3d at 70). Ad d it io nal l y, al t ho ug h a d e fe nd ant may asse r t t he r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial , c o mpl ic it y in c o nt inuing d at e s may be infe r r e d as ac quie sc ing and no t vigorously inv o king t he r ig ht t o spe e d y t r ial . See Stacy, 396 S.W.3d at 798. 18 He r e , He nd e r so n e o nt inue d t o fil e pro se mo t io ns, al l w hil e insist ing upo n a spe e d y t r ial . He e o nt inue d t o d e mand a ne w at t o r ne y, d e spit e t he c o ur t ’s ad v ising him t hat suc h a r e que st w o ul d ine v it abl y c ause fur t he r d e l ay. He ne v e r o nc e o bje c t e d t o o ne o f t he c o nt inuanc e s d ur ing a c o ur t appe ar anc e . He e v e n r e que st e d ano t he r c o nt inuanc e be fo r e his June 2016 t r ial d at e , making sur e his o bje c t io n t o t he t r ial g o ing fo r w ar d w as pr e se r v e d fo r t he r e c o r d . He nd e r so n d id , bo t h in w r it ing and v e r bal l y, asse r t his c o nst it ut io nal r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial . Ye t asid e fr o m t ho se st e ps, al l his ac t io ns se e m int e nt upo n c ausing d e l ay and ut il izing t hat d e l ay t o his d e fe nse ’s ad v ant ag e . Thus, He nd e r so n’s inv o c at io n w as l e ss t han “v ig o r o us.” 4. Prejudice The r e ar e t hr e e int e r e st s pr o t e c t e d by t he r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial : “(1) t o pr e v e nt o ppr e ssiv e pr e t r ial inc ar c e r at io n; (2) t o minimize anxie t y and c o nc e r n o f t he ac c use d ; and (3) t o l imit t he po ssibil it y t hat t he d e fe nse w il l be impair e d .” Dunaway, 60 S.W.3d at 571-72 (quo t ing Barker, 407 U.S. at 532. The l ast c o nsid e r at io n “is t he mo st se r io us.” Dunaway, 60 S.W.3d at 572 (c it ing Barker, 407 U.S. at 532). To a c e r t ain e xt e nt , t he d isse nt ’s d e t e r minat io n t hat He nd e r so n suffe r e d pr e jud ic e t hr o ug h o ppr e ssiv e pr e t r ial inc ar c e r at io n is c o r r e c t . Ye t t his is o nl y o ne fac t o r fo r t he pr e jud ic e anal ysis und e r Barker. He nd e r so n has no t pr e se nt e d any pr o o f o f anxie t y be yo nd t hat w hic h ac c o mpanie s an o r d inar y pr o se c ut io n. See Dunaway, 60 S.W.3d at 572. He has al so no t pr e se nt e d a sho w ing o f any c o nc r e t e pr e jud ic e t o his d e fe nse . Co nt r ar y t o He nd e r so n’s 19 c l aim o f pr e jud ic e t o his c ase , t he d e l ay ac t ual l y assist e d his d e fe nse in a v e r y c o nc r e t e w ay. Al ic e , t he v ic t im in t his c ase , w as a c o nv ic t e d fe l o n at t he t ime o f t r ial . She w as no t a c o nv ic t e d fe l o n w he n t he assaul t o c c ur r e d . She ad mit t e d t hat , aft e r t his happe ne d , she be g an using d r ug s ag ain and “c aug ht [he r ] fir st fe l o ny” aft e r t his inc id e nt . This l e nd s a c e r t ain w e ig ht t o He nd e r so n’s d e fe nse , c l aiming t hat Al ic e w as l e ss c r e d ibl e and had use d d r ug s l e ad ing t o he r al l e g at io ns ag ainst him. Giv e n t his c o nt e xt , t he Co ur t must l o o k at al l t he se fac t o r s and d e t e r mine ho w t he d e l ay bal anc e s, w he t he r it be ag ainst t he d e fe nd ant o r t he g o v e r nme nt . 5. Weighing the Factors Al t ho ug h, as t he d isse nt st at e s, “d e pr iv at io n o f l ibe r t y is t he c o r e v al ue t he Spe e d y Tr ial Cl ause w as d e sig ne d t o pr o t e c t ,” t he anal ysis o f pr e jud ic e and t he w e ig ht g iv e n t o al l t he fac t o r s he r e l e ad s t o a c o nc l usio n t hat He nd e r so n’s c o nst it ut io nal r ig ht s w e r e no t v io l at e d . He nd e r so n w as subje c t e d t o a l e ng t hy pr e t r ial d e t e nt io n be fo r e r e ac hing a jur y t r ial . Suc h pr e t r ial d e t e nt io n is a pr o bl e m o ur c o ur t s ar e c o nt inual l y ad d r e ssing t hr o ug h pr e t r ial mo nit o r ing pr o g r ams, r e fo r m o f r ul e s and r e g ul at io ns r e g ar d ing bo nd and bail , and e xpansio n o f mo nit o r ing pr o g r ams w hil e aw ait ing t r ial . Ho w e v e r , He nd e r so n’s pr e t r ial d e t e nt io n, w hil e e xt r e me l y sig nific ant , w as no t suffic ie nt , w hil e w e ig hing and e xamining al l t he Barker fac t o r s, t o find a c o nst it ut io nal v io l at io n. He nd e r so n c o nt inue d t o e xac e r bat e t he d e l ay o f his c ase t hr o ug h r e pe t it iv e mo t io ns, ar g ume nt at iv e at t it ud e , and an unw il l ing ne ss t o c o mpl y 20 w it h pr o c e d ur al pr o t e c t io ns. He w as int e nt o n hav ing his w ay, fr o m his c ho ic e o f appo int e d c o unse l t o e xac t l y ho w t he c ase sho ul d pr o c e e d ; ye t , d e spit e al l t he par t ie s ’ at t e mpt s t o ac c o mmo d at e his r e que st s, he insist e d t he pr o c e ss w as t aking t o o l o ng . The t r ial c o ur t w as r e miss in it s d ut ie s he r e , mo st no t abl y t hr o ug h t he t w o -ye ar d e l ay in t e nd e r ing an o r d e r o n He nd e r so n’s mo t io ns t o suppr e ss. Ho w e v e r , t he t r ial c o ur t ’s at t e mpt s t o pr o g r e ss He nd e r so n’s c ase w e r e c o nsist e nt l y hind e r e d by He nd e r so n’s o w n mac hinat io ns. Al t ho ug h t he t r ial c o ur t w as t ar d y he r e , t his Co ur t c anno t ho l d t hat t he e nt ir e r e aso n fo r d e l ay w as o n t he g o v e r nme nt and t he r e fo r e e nt it l e s He nd e r so n t o a d ismissal o f his c ase . In Doggett, t he Unit e d St at e s Supr e me Co ur t no t e d t hat “if t he Go v e r nme nt had pur sue d Do g g e t t w it h r e aso nabl e d il ig e nc e fr o m his ind ic t me nt t o his ar r e st , his spe e d y t r ial c l aim w o ul d fail . Ind e e d , t hat c o nc l usio n w o ul d g e ne r al l y fo l l o w as a mat t e r o f c o ur se however great the delay, so l o ng as Do g g e t t c o ul d no t sho w spe c ific pr e jud ic e t o his d e fe nse .” Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 656 (1992). In Doggett, t he Co ur t t he r e no t e d a c o mpl e t e abse nc e o f any e ffo r t o n t he g o v e r nme nt ’s par t t o pr o se c ut e Do g g e t t fo r o v e r six ye ar s. Id. at 652-53. “The Go v e r nme nt , ind e e d , c an har d l y c o mpl ain t o o l o ud l y, fo r pe r sist e nt ne g l e c t in c o nc l ud ing a c r iminal pr o se c ut io n ind ic at e s an unc o mmo nl y fe e bl e int e r e st in br ing ing an ac c use d t o just ic e ; t he mo r e w e ig ht t he Go v e r nme nt at t ac he s t o se c ur ing a c o nv ic t io n, t he har d e r it w il l t r y t o g e t it .” Id. at 657. He r e , t he g o v e r nme nt w as no t c o mpl e t e l y inac t iv e l ike in Doggett. The Co mmo nw e al t h’s At t o r ne y’s o ffic e w as c o nsist e nt l y t aking 21 st e ps t o fur t he r t he pr o se c ut io n and nav ig at e a c l o g g e d t r ial sc he d ul e t o e nsur e He nd e r so n w as br o ug ht t o just ic e . The l ang uag e o f McDonald is c o mpe l l ing he r e ; “t he d e l ay he r e w as e xt r ao r d inar y and pr e sumpt iv e l y pr e jud ic ial ; ho w e v e r , in bal anc ing t he fac t o r s ... w e ar e o f t he fur t he r o pinio n t he pr o se c ut io n e xe r c ise d g o o d fait h in at t e mpt ing t o br ing Mc Do nal d t o t r ial , t he d e l ays w e r e no t sho w n t o be fo r o t he r t han v al id r e aso ns and a sig nific ant po r t io n o f t he d e l ays is at t r ibut e d t o Mc Do nal d .” McDonald, 569 S.W.2d at 137. The r e , t he Co ur t d e t e r mine d t hat r at he r t han ho ne st l y and v ig o r o usl y asse r t ing t he r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial , Mc Do nal d “ho pe d t o t ake ad v ant ag e o f t he d e l ay in o r d e r t o o bt ain a d ismissal o f t he c har g e , and ... t he pr e jud ic e t o Mc Do nal d by r e aso n o f t he d e l ay w as minimal if any pr e jud ic e r e sul t e d at al l .” Id. He nd e r so n’s c o nd uc t is simil ar . Whil e his w o r d s d e mand e d a spe e d y t r ial , his c o nd uc t hind e r e d suc h pr o g r e ss. The d isse nt has o c c l ud e d t he w e ig hing o f t he Barker fac t o r s by fo c using so l e l y o n t he pr o bl e m o f l ibe r t y. The l ibe r t y int e r e st is a v it al l y impo r t ant o ne t o pr o t e c t . Ho w e v e r , t his Co ur t c anno t se t asid e al l t he o t he r fac t o r s and c ase pr e c e d e nt t o d e t e r mine t hat He nd e r so n’s d e pr iv at io n o f l ibe r t y he r e w as suffic ie nt pr e jud ic e , o n it s o w n, t o w ar r ant d ismissal o f his e nt ir e c ase . He r e , t he bal anc e o f al l t he fac t o r s and c ir c umst anc e s w e ig hs against He nd e r so n. His c o nsist e nt ac t io ns t o d e l ay pr o c e e d ing s, c o unt e r e d by t he pr o se c ut io n and t r ial c o ur t (abse nt t he d e l ay in asse ssing t he suppr e ssio n mo t io ns) at t e mpt ing t o push t he c ase fo r w ar d , sho w a c e r t ain l ac k o f sinc e r it y in insist ing upo n a 22 spe e d y t r ial . Fo r al l t he se r e aso ns, He nd e r so n’s r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial w as no t v io l at e d . He nd e r so n al so al l e g e d t he t r ial c o ur t e r r e d in: (1) fail ing t o appo int him subst it ut e c o unse l ; (2) fail ing t o ad v ise him o f t he r ig ht t o o r appo int st and -by o r hybr id c o unse l ; (3) d e nying his mo t io n t o suppr e ss; (4) e xc l ud ing e v id e nc e und e r t he Rape Shie l d Law ; and (5) misad v ising him o f his r ig ht t o r e c al l a w it ne ss, t he r e by int e r fe r ing w it h his r ig ht t o pr e se nt a d e fe nse . B. Substitute Counsel He nd e r so n al l e g e s t hat t he t r ial c o ur t abuse d it s d isc r e t io n in r e fusing t o g r ant him subst it ut e c o unse l , as he r e pe at e d l y r e que st e d . He nd e r so n fil e d his fir st pro se mo t io n fo r c o nfl ic t c o unse l o n May 12, 2014, aft e r t he t r ial jud g e aske d him t o put his r e que st in w r it ing . That same d ay, t he c o ur t he l d an ex parte he ar ing t o d e t e r mine w he t he r d e fe nse c o unse l sho ul d be r e mo v e d . At t he he ar ing , He nd e r so n c it e d t o a c o mpl e t e br e akd o w n in c o mmunic at io n and a d isag r e e me nt w it h appo int e d c o unse l as t o his d e fe nse t o pr o ffe r at t r ial . As t o his d e fe nse , he ar g ue d (1) he w as no t g uil t y; (2) t he injur ie s t o t he v ic t im c o ul d hav e be e n c ause d by br e aking g l ass fr o m he r g o ing t hr o ug h his w ind o w , r at he r t han a knife ; (3) t he v ic t im’s ac t io ns c o ul d hav e be e n c ause d by he r c o nsumpt io n o f il l ic it subst anc e s; and (4) t hat t he ind ic t me nt v io l at e d t he pr o sc r ipt io n ag ainst d o ubl e je o par d y by c har g ing him w it h bo t h at t e mpt e d mur d e r and assaul t , fir st d e g r e e . The t r ial c o ur t inquir e d int o t he al l e g e d br e akd o w n and d e fe nse st r at e g y. He nd e r so n ar g ue d t hat t he v ic t im c l imbe d o ut o f a br o ke n w ind o w aft e r a c o nse nsual se xual e nc o unt e r ; 23 w he n she w as o ut sid e and sc r e aming , he r an be c ause he w as sc ar e d o f t he r e ac t io n o f byst and e r s. He nd e r so n ar g ue d t he r e had be e n no d isc ussio ns as t o t r ial st r at e g y and his c o unse l insist e d he w o ul d “g o by t he e v id e nc e .” He nd e r so n d id c o nc e d e t hat his at t o r ne y had fo r w ar d e d al l t he d isc o v e r y t o him, o t he r t han w hat he c l aime d w as a missing pag e (pag e 18) in t he d isc o v e r y pac ke t . The t r ial c o ur t aske d He nd e r so n w hat c o nfl ic t c o unse l c o ul d d o t hat his c ur r e nt at t o r ne y had r e fuse d t o d o . In r e spo nse , He nd e r so n st at e d : “My spir it just d o n’t be ar w it ne ss w it h Mr . Le mke no mo r e .” He nd e r so n ad mit t e d t hat his at t o r ne y had me t w it h him at l e ast e ig ht t o nine t ime s, asking him que st io ns abo ut d isc o v e r y. But He nd e r so n d e c id e d t hat t he r e l at io nship “just w o n’t w o r k.” He w ant e d an at t o r ne y w ho w o ul d put fo r t h “so me kind o f e ffo r t ” fo r his d e fe nse . He nd e r so n d e sc r ibe d c o nv e r sat io ns w it h his at t o r ne y t hat so und l ike an at t o r ne y e xpl aining c e r t ain l e g al r ul e s o n e v id e nc e ad missibil it y and l imit at io ns. He st at e d t hat he and his at t o r ne y had d isc usse d t he o pt io n o f t e st ifying at t r ial but t hat he ho pe d t he par t ie s w o ul d be abl e t o c o me t o so me kind o f ag r e e me nt be fo r e t r ial . Appo int e d c o unse l ad amant l y ar g ue d he w as d o ing al l he c o ul d t o pr o v id e e ffe c t iv e c o unse l fo r He nd e r so n. He st at e d t hat he and He nd e r so n had me t o n mul t ipl e o c c asio ns and d isc usse d st r at e g y. Many o f t he st at e me nt s He nd e r so n c it e d w e r e , as Le mke ar g ue d , par t s o f c o nv e r sat io ns abo ut w hat c o ul d o r may happe n at t r ial . He e xpl aine d so me o f t he ad missio n o r e v id e nt iar y issue s t hat may ar ise at t r ial , as r e fe r e nc e by so me o f He nd e r so n’s 24 r e mar ks. Le mke d e sc r ibe d t he ir c o nv e r sat io n o n t e st ifying , e xpl aining ho w so me st at e me nt s t hat may o t he r w ise be inad missibl e c o ul d be ut il ize d as impe ac hme nt e v id e nc e if he d id t e st ify. He ad mit t e d t o saying t hat he w o ul d “g o by t he e v id e nc e ,” be c ause he had st at e d he c o ul d no t pr o v e He nd e r so n’s ar g ume nt as t o v ic t im’s impair me nt be c ause he had no e v id e nc e she w as und e r t he infl ue nc e at t he t ime o f t he al l e g e d assaul t . As t o t he e xpe r t w it ne ss issue , He nd e r so n w ant e d t o hir e a g l ass and c ut spe c ial ist (amo ng st o t he r v ar io us e xpe r t s) in r e fe r e nc e t o t he v ic t im’s c ut s and injur ie s. Le mke info r me d t he c o ur t t hat he had c o nt ac t e d a spe c ial ist in c ut s, w ho e v al uat e d t he e v id e nc e fo r him fo r fr e e . Le mke st at e d t hat , aft e r r e c e iv ing t hat o pinio n, he w as no t g o ing t o c al l t he e xpe r t as a w it ne ss o r c o nt ac t any fur t he r e xpe r t s o n t hat par t ic ul ar issue . As t o t he d o ubl e je o par d y issue , Le mke info r me d t he c o ur t he d id no t be l ie v e t he r e w as a me c hanism t o r e mo v e o ne o f t he c har g e s before t r ial but had c ase l aw as t o o bje c t ing t o inst r uc t io n o n o ne o f t he c har g e s at t he c l o se o f e v id e nc e . Le mke st at e d t hat t he Co mmo nw e al t h had mad e an o ffe r o f 25 ye ar s and t hat he be l ie v e d t hat o ffe r w as st il l av ail abl e . Ho w e v e r , He nd e r so n int e r r upt e d , st at ing he w as unw il l ing t o t ake any o ffe r mo r e t han 3 ye ar s. Le mke st at e d he fe l t he had d o ne no t hing impr o pe r and had d o ne e v e r yt hing t hat c o mpe t e nt c o unse l w o ul d d o und e r t he c ir c umst anc e s; he ad d e d t hat he w o ul d o bje c t t o be ing r e mo v e d . He nd e r so n, as an ad d it io nal po int , st at e d t hat many o f his fr ie nd s had be e n r e pr e se nt e d by Le mke and had no t had g o o d o ut c o me s and fe l t t his w as no t a g o o d “t r ac k r e c o r d ” fo r an at t o r ne y t o r e pr e se nt him and 25 simpl y st at e d “he ’s no t fo r me .” The t r ial c o ur t e nt e r e d a final o r d e r d e nying He nd e r so n’s mo t io n o n Aug ust 8, 2014. At an appe ar anc e o n Oc t o be r 2, 2014, He nd e r so n r e it e r at e d t hat he w ant e d ne w c o unse l and st at e d t hat he w as “no t g o ing t o t r ial ” w it h t his at t o r ne y. On Januar y 16, 2015, t he par t ie s appe ar e d fo r ano t he r upd at e . At t o r ne ys st at e d t he r e w e r e no pe nd ing issue s, but He nd e r so n int e r r upt e d , st at ing t hat he no l o ng e r ne e d e d an at t o r ne y and t hat Go d w o ul d be r e pr e se nt ing him. He nd e r so n fo l l o w e d up t his st at e me nt w it h a pro se mo t io n t o d ismiss his publ ic d e fe nd e r and a l e t t e r t o t he c o ur t . On Apr il 7, 2015, t he c o ur t he l d ano t he r he ar ing . He nd e r so n’s c o nd uc t l e d t o t he c o ur t ’s o r d e r r e quir ing a c o mpe t e nc y e v al uat io n in June 2015. On Se pt e mbe r 10, 2015, He nd e r so n se nt a l e t t e r t o t he c o ur t , info r ming it t hat he had fil e d a pro se fe d e r al l aw suit ag ainst his publ ic d e fe nd e r s and t he De par t me nt o f Publ ic Ad v o c ac y. He ag ain r e que st e d c o nfl ic t c o unse l . The c o ur t e nt e r e d ano t he r o r d e r o n Oc t o be r 27, 2015 d e nying t he r e que st fo r subst it ut e c o unse l . On Fe br uar y 26, 2016, He nd e r so n t he n fil e d a mo t io n t o r e pr e se nt himse l f. Aft e r a he ar ing o n Mar c h 28, 2016, t he t r ial c o ur t e nt e r e d an o r d e r al l o w ing t he d e fe nd ant t o fo r e g o c o unse l and r e pr e se nt himse l f at t r ial . “[A] d e fe nd ant w ho is r e pr e se nt e d by a publ ic d e fe nd e r o r appo int e d c o unse l d o e s no t hav e a c o nst it ut io nal r ig ht t o be r e pr e se nt e d by any par t ic ul ar at t o r ne y, and is no t e nt it l e d t o t he d ismissal o f his c o unse l and t he appo int me nt o f subst it ut e c o unse l e xc e pt fo r ad e quat e r e aso ns o r a c l e ar abuse 26 by c o unse l .” Henderson v. Commonwealth, 636 S.W.2d 648, 651 (Ky. 1982) (c it at io ns o mit t e d ). “Whe n an ind ig e nt d e fe nd ant se e ks t o c hang e his appo int e d c o unse l , he c ar r ie s t he bur d e n o f d e mo nst r at ing t o t he c o ur t t hat t he r e e xist s ‘g o o d c ause , suc h as a c o nfl ic t o f int e r e st , a c o mpl e t e br e akd o w n o f c o mmunic at io n o r an ir r e c o nc il abl e c o nfl ic t .”’ Stinnett v. Commonwealth, 364 S.W.3d 70, 81 (Ky. 2011) (quo t ing Shegog v. Commonwealth, 142 S.W.3d 101, 105 (Ky. 2004)). The Co ur t has “fur t he r d e sc r ibe d g o o d c ause as ‘(1) a c o mpl e t e br e akd o w n o f c o mmunic at io ns be t w e e n c o unse l and d e fe nd ant ; (2) a c o nfl ic t o f int e r e st ; and (3) w he r e t he l e g it imat e int e r e st s o f t he d e fe nd ant ar e be ing pr e jud ic e d .’” Stinnett, 364 S.W.3d at 81 (quo t ing Deno v. Commonwealth, 177 S.W.3d 753, 759 (Ky. 2005) (c it ing Baker v. Commonwealth, 574 S.W.2d 325, 326-27 (Ky. App. 1978))). Whe t he r t he r e is suc h “g o o d c ause ” fo r subst it ut e c o unse l is a mat t e r w it hin t he d isc r e t io n o f t he t r ial c o ur t . See Pillersdorf v. Department of Public Advocacy, 890 S.W.2d 616, 621 (Ky. 1994) (d e c id e d und e r no w -r e pe al e d KRS 31.130 o n “Assig nme nt o f subst it ut e at t o r ne y”). “Ac c o r d ing l y, t he bar is se t hig h fo r a d e fe nd ant t o fo r c e appo int e d c o unse l o ff t he c ase .” Stinnett, 264 S.W.3d at 81. “(M]e r e d issat isfac t io n w it h appo int e d c o unse l ’s pe r fo r manc e is insuffic ie nt t o suppo r t a mo t io n t o suppo r t his r e mo v al .” Id. The r e aso ns po sit e d by He nd e r so n fo r c o unse l ’s r e mo v al ar e simpl y insuffic ie nt and unfo und e d fr o m r e v ie w o f t he r e c o r d . Mo st o f his al l e g at io ns w e r e r e fut e d by his appo int e d c o unse l . Ev e n He nd e r so n’s o w n st at e me nt s w e r e c o nt r ad ic t o r y, at o ne po int c o mpl aining t hat his at t o r ne y ne v e r d isc usse d 27 st r at e g y and t he n d e sc r ibing c o nv e r sat io ns t hat w e r e c l e ar l y abo ut st r at e g y. This is a hig h bar and t he r e must be g o o d c ause fo r r e mo v al . Giv e n al l t he e v id e nc e be fo r e t he c o ur t aft e r t his he ar ing , w e c anno t say t hat t he jud g e abuse d his d isc r e t io n by d e nying t he mo t io n fo r subst it ut e c o unse l . He nd e r so n al so c it e s t o his fe d e r al l aw suit as g r o und s fo r ne e d ing subst it ut e c o unse l . He fil e d a c o mpl aint in t he We st e r n Dist r ic t o f Ke nt uc ky. Ad mit t e d l y, t he fil ing o f a l aw suit may l e ad t o a c o nfl ic t , c r e at ing a “g o o d c ause ” fo r subst it ut e c o unse l . Ho w e v e r , “w hil e w e hav e r e c o g nize d t hat a bar c o mpl aint o r a l aw suit fil e d by an ind ig e nt d e fe nd ant ag ainst his appo int e d c o unse l may g iv e r ise t o g o o d c ause fo r his r e pl ac e me nt , suc h fil ing s d o no t w ar r ant an aut o mat ic subst it ut io n o f an assig ne d publ ic d e fe nd e r .” Stinnett, 364 S.W.3d at 81 (c it ing Grady v. Commonwealth, 325 S.W.3d 333, 345-46 (Ky. 2010)). Al l o w ing suc h an “aut o mat ic subst it ut io n” “w o ul d al l o w a d issat isfie d c l ie nt t o manufac t ur e ‘g o o d c ause ’ by simpl y fil ing a bar c o mpl aint ” o r fr iv o l o us l aw suit . Stinnett, 364 S.W.3d at 81. To al l o w t his abuse o f t he syst e m “w o ul d usur p [t his Co ur t ’s] ho l d ing t hat d e fe nd ant s ar e no t e nt it l e d t o r e pl ac e t he ir c o unse l w it ho ut g o o d c ause and w o ul d no t se r v e t he jud ic ial e c o no my o f t he c o ur t s o f t his Co mmo nw e al t h.” Grady, 325 S.W.3d at 346 (c it ing Deno, 177 S.W.3d at 759). He nd e r so n’s c o mpl aint w as summar il y d ismisse d by t he d ist r ic t c o ur t in Januar y 2016 fo r fail ur e t o st at e a c l aim upo n w hic h r e l ie f c o ul d be g r ant e d . The r e is no fo und at io n fo r find ing t hat t he t r ial c o ur t abuse d it s d isc r e t io n in d e t e r mining t hat t his l aw suit d id no t pr o v id e “g o o d c ause ” fo r d ismissing Le mke and appo int ing ne w c o unse l . 28 “[S]o l o ng as t he t r ial c o ur t al l o w s t he d e fe nd ant t o st at e o n t he r e c o r d t he r e aso ns w hy he se e ks subst it ut io n o f c o unse l , t he t r ial c o ur t may e xe r c ise d isc r e t io n t o d e t e r mine ho w e xt e nsiv e t he he ar ing ne e d s t o be in l ig ht o f t he fac t ual c ir c umst anc e s o f e ac h ind iv id ual c ase .” Grady, 325 S.W.3d at 346; see also Deno v. Commonwealth, 177 S.W.3d 753, 759-60 (Ky. 2005). The t r ial c o ur t he r e c o nd uc t e d a l e ng t hy he ar ing int o He nd e r so n’s al l e g at io ns. He al l o w e d He nd e r so n ampl e t ime t o d isc uss his r e se r v at io ns, c o mpl aint s, and al l e g at io ns r e g ar d ing his at t o r ne y’s c o nd uc t . The c o ur t al so al l o w e d d e fe nse c o unse l t o r e spo nd t o t ho se c o mpl aint s. Giv e n al l t he e v id e nc e , st at e me nt s, and c o nd uc t be fo r e t he t r ial jud g e , t he c o ur t d id no t abuse it s d isc r e t io n in d e nying He nd e r so n’s mo t io n. C. Stand-by or Hybrid Counsel He nd e r so n al so al l e g e s e r r o r by t he t r ial c o ur t misad v ising him o f his c ho ic e s if he w ant e d t o d ismiss appo int e d c o unse l and in fail ing t o appo int hybr id '7 o r st and -by8 c o unse l fo r him o nc e he w as pe r mit t e d t o r e pr e se nt himse l f. As t o t he fir st al l e g at io n, at t he st at us he ar ing o n Oc t o be r 2, 2014, He nd e r so n r e it e r at e d his r e que st fo r ne w c o unse l , “I’m st il l se e king ne w 7 “A l it ig ant w it h hybr id c o unse l st at us st and s in t he po sit io n o f be ing c o ­ c o unse l w it h a l ic e nse d at t o r ne y.” Nunn v. Commonwealth, 461 S.W.3d 741, 748 (Ky. 2015) (c it ing Mitchell u. Commonwealth, 423 S.W.3d 152, 158 (Ky. 2014)). 8 “Standby counsel is d e fine d as ‘[a]n at t o r ne y w ho is appo int e d t o be pr e par e d t o r e pr e se nt a pr o se c r iminal d e fe nd ant if t he d e fe nd ant 's se l f-r e pr e se nt at io n e nd s. [ ] The st and -by c o unse l may al so pr o v id e so me ad v ic e and g uid anc e t o t he d e fe nd ant d ur ing t he se l f-r e pr e se nt at io n.—Al so t e r me d advisory counsel.’” Allen v. Commonwealth, 410 S.W.3d 125, 138 (Ky. 2013) (e mphasis o r ig inal ) (quo t ing Black’s Law Dictionary (9t h e d . 2009)). 29 c o unse l . I’m no t sat isfie d .” The t r ial c o ur t t o l d him he c o ul d hir e any at t o r ne y he w ant e d . Whe n He nd e r so n said he w as not g o ing t o t r ial w it h Mr . Le mke , t he t r ial c o ur t st at e d , “Yo u aske d t his Co ur t t o appo int c o unse l fo r yo u ... [Mic hae l Le mke is] a v e ry g o o d , c o mpe t e nt l aw ye r and he ’s yo ur l aw ye r . So , yo u hav e t w o o pt io ns. Yo u c an e it he r g o t o t r ial w it h yo ur appo int e d c o unse l o r yo u c an hir e any at t o r ne y w ho ’s a me mbe r o f t he Ke nt uc ky Bar Asso c iat io n, if yo u c ho o se t o , t o r e pr e se nt yo u. Yo u d o n’t g e t t o pic k and c ho o se w ho yo ur appo int e d c o unse l is.” Whe n He nd e r so n r e it e r at e d his d issat isfac t io n, t he t r ial c o ur t me r e l y r e que st e d t hat he fil e a ne w mo t io n and t he y w o ul d t ake it up at ano t he r t ime . He nd e r so n al so al l e g e s e r r o r in t he t r ial c o ur t ’s fail ur e t o appo int another at t o r ne y as hybr id c o unse l fo r him at t r ial . Whe n He nd e r so n se e me d amic abl e t o t he id e a o f st and -by c o unse l , t he t r ial c o ur t e xpl aine d t hat he c o ul d hav e Le mke av ail abl e t o assist o n c e r t ain pr o c e d ur al issue s. He nd e r so n aske d if his c o unse l c o ul d be so me o ne o t he r t han Le mke . The t r ial c o ur t st at e d t hat w as a d e c isio n l e ft t o t he o ffic e o f t he publ ic d e fe nd e r and t hat Le mke ’s “bo ss,” Dan Go ye t t e , d e c id e s w hic h at t o r ne y r e pr e se nt s w hic h c l ie nt . He nd e r so n no w c l aims t his st at e me nt w as in e r r o r and , in fail ing t o appo int a d iffe r e nt at t o r ne y as hybr id o r st and -by c o unse l , t he c o ur t v io l at e d his c o nst it ut io nal r ig ht s. The se t w o al l e g at io ns o f e r r o r be c o me hig hl y int e r t w ine d upo n r e v ie w ; t he y bo t h infr ing e upo n He nd e r so n’s r ig ht t o hybr id o r st and -by c o unse l . Ho w e v e r , t hat r ig ht is no t abso l ut e . A r e que st fo r hybr id c o unse l must be “t ime l y and une quiv o c al .” Deno, 177 S.W.3d at 758. He nd e r so n never 30 r e que st e d hybr id c o unse l . He w ant e d a d iffe r e nt at t o r ne y; w he n t hat r e que st w as r e pe at e d l y d e nie d , w it ho ut e r r o r by t he c o ur t , he t he n d e c id e d t o r e pr e se nt himse l f. He ne v e r r e que st e d st and -by c o unse l . At his Faretta9 he ar ing , t he t r ial c o ur t e xpl aine d he c o ul d hav e Le mke st ay o n t o assist He nd e r so n in v ar io us mat t e r s, l ike e nsur ing He nd e r so n had st r e e t c l o t he s fo r t he t r ial . He nd e r so n d id no t w ant Le mke t o st ay o n, e v e n in a st and -by c apac it y. He aske d if he c o ul d hav e ano t he r at t o r ne y, but t he t r ial c o ur t info r me d him t hat t he appo int me nt o f a par t ic ul ar at t o r ne y fo r him w as no t t he c o ur t ’s c ho ic e , 10 Tr ial c o ur t s ar e no t r e quir e d t o “sua sponte info r m d e fe nd ant s o f t he ir r ig ht t o hybr id r e pr e se nt at io n.” Mitchell v. Commonwealth, 423 S.W.3d 152, 162 (Ky. 2014). Thus, t he c o ur t d id no t e r r in fail ing t o info r m He nd e r so n o f t he v ar io us fo r ms his hybr id o r st and -by c o unse l c o ul d t ake , w it ho ut be ing r e que st e d . Ad d it io nal l y, He nd e r so n w as o pe n t o t he id e a o f a st and -by at t o r ne y if it c o ul d hav e be e n so me o ne o t he r t han Le mke ; t his o nc e ag ain r e t ur ns t o t he id e a o f subst it ut e c o unse l , e v e n as a st and -by c o unse l . The r e w as no g o o d c ause sho w n fo r Le mke t o be r e mo v e d . Thus, t he t r ial c o ur t d id no t e r r in fail ing t o appo int a d iffe r e nt at t o r ne y as st and -by c o unse l . Ev e n if t he c o ur t w as mist ake n in t he pr o c e ss, as t he t r ial c o ur t c o ul d und o ubt e d l y find a c o nfl ic t o r c ause ne c e ssit at ing subst it ut e c o unse l t hus c l o ud ing his st at e me nt t o He nd e r so n w it h so me d o ubt , it mad e no d iffe r e nc e fo r He nd e r so n’s c ase . Le mke w as his at t o r ne y; Le mke ’s r e pr e se nt at io n c o ul d hav e be e n l imit e d 9 Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).10 Le mke w as o r d e r e d t o , and d id , pr o v id e He nd e r so n w it h c o ur t r o o m at t ir e fo r t he t r ial . 31 t hr o ug h He nd e r so n’s w aiv e r t o hybr id o r st and -by c o unse l . Ho w e v e r , e v e n if He nd e r so n d e c id e d t o kno w ing l y w aiv e c e r t ain r ig ht s and c ho o se o ne o f t he se o pt io ns, t hat d e c isio n d o e s no t c r e at e g o o d c ause fo r Le mke t o be r e mo v e d . The r e w as st il l no e r r o r in suc h a d e c isio n. He nd e r so n al so c l aims t hat t he c o ur t e r r e d in fail ing t o sua sponte appo int st and -by c o unse l fo r He nd e r so n aft e r he info r me d t he c o ur t o f a sl e e p c o nd it io n t hat c ause d him t o fal l asl e e p. Impo r t ant l y, t he r e d o e s no t appe ar t o be any me d ic al pr o o f in t he r e c o r d o f He nd e r so n’s c o nd it io n. Inst e ad , he w as fal l ing asl e e p d ur ing voir dire and he info r me d t he c o ur t he had a me d ic al c o nd it io n c ausing him t o fal l asl e e p inv o l unt ar il y. This happe ne d ag ain o n t he t hir d d ay o f t r ial and He nd e r so n aske d t he c o ur t t o inst r uc t t he jur y o n his me d ic al c o nd it io n,11 The c o ur t d id so . A t r ial c o ur t may appo int st and -by c o unse l o v e r t he o bje c t io n o f a d e fe nd ant . Allen v. Commonwealth, 410 S.W.3d 125, 134 (Ky. 2013) (c it ing Chapman v. Commonwealth, 265 S.W.3d 156, 166- 67 (Ky. 2007)). Ho w e v e r , w e hav e ne v e r r e c o g nize d a duty o f a t r ial c o ur t t o impo se st and -by c o unse l o v e r t he d e fe nd ant ’s o bje c t io n. If a d e fe nd ant is inc o mpe t e nt t o r e pr e se nt himse l f, t he n he c anno t r e pr e se nt himse l f, pur suant t o Faretta. That is a c l e ar d ut y fo r t he t r ial c o ur t . Ho w e v e r , w e hav e ne v e r r e quir e d an affir mat iv e d ut y t o impo se upo n an unw il l ing d e fe nd ant a st and -by o r hybr id c o unse l . Ev e n if w e d id , “w he n a t r ial c o ur t appo int s st and by c o unse l o v e r a d e fe nd ant ’s o bje c t io ns, t he d e fe nd ant t ypic al l y may d e fine 11 No t abl y, fr o m e xt e nsiv e r e v ie w o f t he r e c o r d , He nd e r so n se e me d al e r t , c o mpr e he nsiv e , and c o mpe t e nt d ur ing his se l f-r e pr e se nt at io n. 32 st and by c o unse l ’s par t ic ipat io n in t he t r ial .” Allen, 410 S.W.Sd at 134-35 (c it ing Chapman, 265 S.W.Sd at 169-70). If t he c o ur t had appo int e d st and -by c o unse l , it w o ul d hav e be e n Mic hae l Le mke , He nd e r so n’s pr io r at t o r ne y. He nd e r so n d id no t w ant Le mke t o hav e anyt hing t o d o w it h his c ase . He nd e r so n st il l w o ul d hav e be e n o ppo se d t o Le mke ’s inv o l v e me nt in his c ase , e v e n as st and -by c o unse l , and Le mke w o ul d hav e be e n unabl e t o pr o v id e assist anc e . Ho w e v e r , t he issue r e maining is w he t he r t he t r ial c o ur t ’s misst at e me nt o f t he l aw is suffic ie nt t o c r e at e st r uc t ur al e r r o r and r e quir e r e v e r sal . “A t r ial c o ur t ac t s e r r o ne o usl y w he r e it affir mat iv e l y misr e pr e se nt s a d e fe nd ant ’s c ho ic e o f c o unse l as be ing be t w e e n ‘o nl y t w o al t e r nat iv e s: e it he r r e pr e se nt himse l f o r ac c e pt appo int e d c o unse l .”’ Nunn, 461 S.W.3d at 748 (quo t ing Baucom v. Commonwealth, 134 S.W.3d 591, 592 (Ky. 2004)). “[l ]t is e r r o r fo r t he t r ial c o ur t t o misst at e t hat a fo r m o f hybr id r e pr e se nt at io n is unav ail abl e in r e spo nse t o an inquir y by a d e fe nd ant o r his c o unse l .” Mitchell, 423 S.W.3d at 162. The “c o mpl e t e abr id g me nt o f t he d e fe nd ant ’s r ig ht t o hybr id c o unse l ” has be e n fo und t o be “st r uc t ur al e r r o r .” Nunn, 461 S.W.3d at 750 {Deno, 177 S.W.3d at 757). In Mitchell, “t he t r ial c o ur t fail e d t o c o r r e c t it s misst at e me nt o f t he l aw , t hus Appe l l ant pr o c e e d e d t o t r ial und e r t he be l ie f t hat hybr id c o unse l w as no t an o pt io n.” 423 S.W.3d at 162. Suc h e r r o r amo unt e d t o a st r uc t ur al e r r o r r e quir ing r e v e r sal . See id. Ho w e v e r , st r uc t ur al e r r o r is no t al w ays pr e se nt w he n t he r e ar e e r r o r s r e l at e d t o a hybr id c o unse l ar r ang e me nt . In 33 Nunn, t his Co ur t d e t e r mine d t hat ar bit r ar y l imit at io ns upo n t he d e fe nd ant ’s ar r ang e me nt w it h hybr id c o unse l w as, al t ho ug h e r r o r , har ml e ss as t he r e w as no pr e jud ic e . Nunn, 461 S.W.3d at 750. He r e , t he t r ial c o ur t misst at e d t he l aw ; he info r me d He nd e r so n he had a c ho ic e t o e it he r ac c e pt Le mke as his appo int e d c o unse l o r hir e ano t he r at t o r ne y. At fir st bl ush, t his is c l e ar l y an e r r o r . Ho w e v e r , w e must l o o k be yo nd a so l e st at e me nt t o und e r st and t he c o nt e xt . This c o nv e r sat io n w as no t happe ning in t he mid st o f He nd e r so n r e que st ing se l f-r e pr e se nt at io n, hybr id c o unse l , o r st and -by c o unse l . He simpl y w ant e d ano t he r at t o r ne y. If he Want e d a l ic e nse d at t o r ne y t o r e pr e se nt him, t he n he d id hav e t w o o pt io ns: e it he r ac c e pt his appo int e d c o unse l (abse nt a sho w ing o f g o o d c ause fo r subst it ut e c o unse l ) o r hir e an at t o r ne y. Ev e n if t he t r ial c o ur t ’s st at e me nt w as in e r r o r , t he r e is no st r uc t ur al e r r o r he r e . He nd e r so n’s r ig ht s t o hybr id c o unse l w e r e no t c o mpl e t e l y abr id g e d . He ul t imat e l y d e t e r mine d he w ant e d t o pr o c e e d pro se, w it ho ut e v e n st and -by c o unse l , and w as affo r d e d t hat r ig ht . He d id no t pr o c e e d t o t r ial und e r t he g uise o f a d isil l usio ne d be l ie f as t o his r e pr e se nt at io n o pt io ns. As suc h, t his Co ur t d o e s no t find any r e v e r sibl e e r r o r in t he t r ial c o ur t ’s inst r uc t io ns t o He nd e r so n. D. Testifying in Narrative Form Ad d it io nal l y, He nd e r so n al so c l aims t hat t he t r ial c o ur t e r r e d by ad v ising him t hat , if he c ho se t o t e st ify w hil e r e pr e se nt ing himse l f, he w o ul d hav e t o ask himse l f que st io ns and answ e r r at he r t han g iv ing a nar r at iv e o f e v e nt s. He nd e r so n no w al l e g e s t hat his r ig ht s w e r e misr e pr e se nt e d t o him and t he 34 w aiv e r o f his r ig ht t o t e st ify o n his be hal f w as no t mad e kno w ing l y, v o l unt ar il y, o r int e l l ig e nt l y. The fo und at io nal e r r o r in He nd e r so n’s ar g ume nt is t hat his ar g ume nt is pr e mise d o n a right t o pr e se nt his t e st imo ny in nar r at iv e fo r m, r at he r t han in a que st io n and answ e r fo r m. Ke nt uc ky l aw has ye t t o r e c o g nize suc h a right. To be sur e , t his Co ur t has r e c o g nize d t hat w he n c o unse l be l ie v e s his o r he r c l ie nt is g o ing t o pr o v id e pe r jur e d t e st imo ny, t he e t hic al r ul e s and d e fe nd ant ’s c o nst it ut io nal r ig ht s may bo t h be pr o t e c t e d t hr o ug h nar r at iv e t e st imo ny. See Brown v. Commonwealth, 226 S.W.Sd 74, 84 (Ky. 2007). Ev e n t hat r e c o g nit io n w as v e r y t he o r e t ic al r at he r t han a c o nc r e t e ho l d ing . See id. Ho w e v e r , t hat r e c o g nit io n has ne v e r , as ye t , be e n e xpand e d int o t he pro se c r iminal d e fe nd ant ar e na by o ur c o ur t s. The r e is no c l e ar c o nse nsus amo ng t he st at e jur isd ic t io ns; 12 in t he fe d e r al c o ur t s, it is a mat t e r o f t he c o ur t ’s d isc r e t io n. See § 7:4. Can a w it ne ss t e st ify in t he nar r at iv e fo r m inst e ad o f t he c ust o mar y que st io n-and -answ e r fo r m?, Ro be r t E. Lar se n, Navigating the Federal Trial § 7:4 (2018 e d .). The d e c isio n t o al l o w suc h nar r at iv e t e st imo ny 12 See Pietrangelo u. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP, 68 A.3d 697, 717 (D.C. 2013) (find ing no abuse o f d isc r e t io n in r e quir ing que st io n and answ e r fo r mat t o al l o w o t he r par t y t o hav e o ppo r t unit y t o o bje c t ); People u. Reese, 102 N.E.3d 126, 145 (Il l . 2017) (“Ac t ing pro se, d e fe nd ant o ffe r e d w id e -r ang ing t e st imo ny in nar r at iv e fo r m o n d ir e c t e xaminat io n.”); Garth v. State, 411 S.W.3d 366, 373 (Mo . Ct . App. 2013) (“The r e is no d ut y fo r a t r ial c o ur t t o info r m a d e fe nd ant ac t ing pro se t hat he c an t e st il y in t he nar r at iv e .”); State v. Tenney, 913 P.2d 750, 754 (Ut ah Ct . App. 1996) (r e fe r e nc ing t r ial c o ur t ’s d e c isio n t o r e quir e d e fe nd ant t o pr e se nt t e st imo ny in que st io n and answ e r fo r mat r at he r t han nar r at iv e ); State v. Joyner, 848 P.2d 769, 774 (Wash. App. 1993) (“Al t ho ug h pr o se d e fe nd ant s ar e o ft e n pe r mit t e d t o t e st ify in nar r at iv e fo r m t o fac il it at e pr e se nt at io n o f t he ir c ase , it is no t ne c e ssar il y an abuse o f d isc r e t io n t o r e quir e a pr o se d e fe nd ant t o use a que st io n-and -answ e r fo r mat .”) (c it at io ns o mit t e d ). 35 ar ise s fr o m t he c o ur t ’s d isc r e t io n und e r Fe d e r al Rul e o f Ev id e nc e (FRE) 611(a), pr o v id ing t hat “The c o ur t sho ul d e xe r c ise r e aso nabl e c o nt r o l o v e r t he mo d e and o r d e r o f e xamining w it ne sse s and pr e se nt ing e v id e nc e so as t o : (1) make t ho se pr o c e d ur e s e ffe c t iv e fo r t e l l ing t he t r ut h; (2) av o id w ast ing t ime ; and (3) pr o t e c t w it ne sse s fr o m har assme nt o r und ue e mbar r assme nt .” Ke nt uc ky’s c o r o l l ar y r ul e o f e v id e nc e , Ke nt uc ky Rul e o f Ev id e nc e (KRE) 611 (a) is al mo st id e nt ic al : “The c o ur t shal l e xe r c ise r e aso nabl e c o nt r o l o v e r t he mo d e and o r d e r o f int e r r o g at ing w it ne sse s and pr e se nt ing e v id e nc e so as t o : (1) Make t he int e r r o g at io n and pr e se nt at io n e ffe c t iv e fo r t he asc e r t ainme nt o f t he t r ut h; (2) Av o id ne e d l e ss c o nsumpt io n o f t ime ; and (3) Pr o t e c t w it ne sse s fr o m har assme nt o r und ue e mbar r assme nt .” It se e ms, t he r e fo r e , t hat any po w e r g r ant e d t o Ke nt uc ky t r ial c o ur t s t o al l o w a d e fe nd ant , ac t ing pro se, t o t e st ify in nar r at iv e fo r m w o ul d ar ise fr o m t his c o r o l l ar y r ul e . Ho w e v e r , t hat d o e s no t me an t hat suc h pe r missio n is aut o mat ic ; KRE 611(a) is a d isc r e t io nar y r ul e al l o w ing t he t r ial c o ur t t o maint ain “r e aso nabl e c o nt r o l ” o v e r t he c o ur t r o o m. “We r e v ie w a t r ial c o ur t ’s e xe r c ise o f t hat c o nt r o l fo r abuse o f d isc r e t io n.” Burke v. Commonwealth, 506 S.W.3d 307, 321 (Ky. 2016) (c it ing Mullikan v. Commonwealth, 341 S.W.3d 99, 104 (Ky. 2011)). The mo r ning o f t r ial , t he Co mmo nw e al t h br o ug ht t o t he t r ial c o ur t ’s at t e nt io n t he mat t e r o f que st io n and answ e r t e st imo ny v s. nar r at iv e t e st imo ny. The pr o se c ut io n c o nc e d e d t hat t he r e w as no br ig ht -l ine r ul e and t hat so me t ime s d e fe nd ant s w e r e pe r mit t e d t o pr e se nt nar r at iv e t e st imo ny. Ho w e v e r , it r e que st e d t hat t he t r ial c o ur t r e quir e que st io n and answ e r 36 t e st imo ny, sho ul d He nd e r so n c ho o se t o t e st ify, t o al l o w r e aso nabl e o ppo r t unit y fo r t he Co mmo nw e al t h t o o bje c t t o inad missibl e t e st imo ny. The jud g e d e sc r ibe d bo t h pr o c e d ur e s fo r t e st imo ny t o He nd e r so n; he e xpl aine d t hat he w as l e aning t o w ar d s t he que st io n and answ e r fo r mat but w ant e d t o d o so me mo r e r e se ar c h be fo r e making a final d e t e r minat io n. He aske d He nd e r so n fo r his t ho ug ht s. He nd e r so n aske d , “So if I t ake t he st and . I’d hav e t o que st io n myse l f?” The jud g e spe c ific al l y t o l d him t hat w as just t he pr o po sal fr o m t he Co mmo nw e al t h. He e xpl aine d t he r e aso ning be hind suc h a pr o c e ss, t o al l o w t he Co mmo nw e al t h t o o bje c t and r e d uc e t he r isk o f inad missibl e t e st imo ny be ing he ar d by t he jur y. He nd e r so n aske d a c o upl e mo r e que st io ns and t he n ad mit t e d t he pur po se w as “r e aso nabl e .” The t r ial c o ur t simpl y said it w o ul d t ake t he r e que st und e r submissio n. It d o e s no t appe ar t hat t he issue ar o se ag ain. The t r ial c o ur t mad e t he t r ad it io nal c o l l o quy o f He nd e r so n as t o w he t he r he w aiv e d his r ig ht t o t e st ify. He nd e r so n aske d a c l ar ific at io n o f t he c o ur t , “I me an, w e l l , w hat am I g o nna g e t up o n st and and t e l l my st o r y? That w o ul d be my t e st imo ny.” The t r ial jud g e d id not t e l l him t hat t his w o ul d be t he fo r mat , no r d id he say it w o ul d be t he que st io n and answ e r fo r mat . He just r e pe at e d , “We l l , yo u hav e , al l I am asking yo u is d o yo u und e r st and t hat yo u hav e t he r ig ht t o t e st ify in fr o nt o f t his jur y?” He nd e r so n said he und e r st o o d and une quiv o c al l y st at e d he w as w aiv ing t hat r ig ht .13 He nd e r so n d id no t r e que st a final d e c isio n o n t he fo r mat o f his 13 Impo r t ant l y, t his d e c isio n w as in ac c o r d anc e w it h He nd e r so n’s e ar l ie r st at e me nt s at t he he ar ing t o r e mo v e Le mke as his c o unse l . The n, he st at e d he w as l e aning t o w ar d s no t t e st ifying . The c o ur t r e fe r e nc e d his l e ng t hy c r iminal hist o r y and 37 t e st imo ny be fo r e making t hat w aiv e r , d e spit e be ing ful l y info r me d o f t he o pt io ns. Fir st , t he pr e se r v at io n o f t his issue is que st io nabl e . He nd e r so n d id no t e v e n o bje c t t o a que st io n and answ e r fo r mat o f t e st imo ny, he me r e l y aske d que st io ns abo ut t he pr o c e ss. It w as t he Co mmo nw e al t h’s mo t io n t hat t he t r ial c o ur t fail e d t o r ul e upo n. Ne it he r par t y insist e d upo n a r ul ing fr o m t he t r ial c o ur t . Ev e n if w e r e v ie w e d t his al l e g e d e r r o r , it w o ul d hav e t o be und e r pal pabl e e r r o r r e v ie w . Whe n suc h an e r r o r is unpr e se r v e d , “appr o pr iat e r e l ie f may be g r ant e d upo n a d e t e r minat io n t hat manife st injust ic e has r e sul t e d fr o m t he e r r o r .” Ke nt uc ky Rul e o f Cr iminal Pr o c e d ur e (RCr ) 10.26. No suc h “manife st injust ic e ” c an be fo und in t his sc e nar io . He nd e r so n o r ig inal l y w as l e aning t o w ar d s no t t e st ifying . The t r ial c o ur t info r me d him o f bo t h me t ho d s o f pr e se nt ing t e st imo ny t o t he jur y ye t d id no t make a final d e c isio n. Ar me d w it h al l t his info r mat io n, He nd e r so n mad e a kno w ing and int e l l ig e nt w aiv e r o f his r ig ht t o t e st ify. Se c o nd , e v e n if t he t r ial c o ur t had d e c id e d t o l imit He nd e r so n t o que st io ning himse l f o n t he st and , t hat w o ul d no t ne c e ssar il y be e r r o r . Und e r KRE 611(a), t he c o ur t is imbue d w it h d isc r e t io n t o c o nt r o l t he c o ur t r o o m at mo sphe r e . “[T]he t r ial c o ur t had inhe r e nt aut ho r it y t o c o nt r o l t he t r ial pr o c e e d ing s and spe c ific aut ho r it y und e r KRE 611 (a) t o c o nt r o l t he mo d e o f int e r r o g at io n o f w it ne sse s.” Mullikan, 341 S.W.3d at 104. The c o ur t c l e ar l y bo t h Le mke and He nd e r so n se e me d t o ac kno w l e d g e t hat hist o r y (w hic h inc l ud e d a pr io r c o nv ic t io n fo r mansl aug ht e r , se c o nd d e g r e e , fr o m 2002) as a c o n o f t e st ifying , amo ng o t he r fac t o r s. 38 had misg iv ing s abo ut He nd e r so n pr o v id ing inad missibl e t e st imo ny sho ul d he t e st ify in nar r at iv e fo r mat . The Co mmo nw e al t h mad e a r e aso nabl e r e que st fo r an o ppo r t unit y t o o bje c t t o que st io ns. The d e c isio n t o al l o w suc h an o ppo r t unit y w o ul d be w it hin t he c o ur t ’s pr o pe r d isc r e t io n und e r KRE 611 (a). He nd e r so n w ant s t his Co ur t t o int e r pr e t t he t r ial c o ur t ’s st at e me nt s as an e r r o r in r e st r ic t ing t he fo r m o f his t e st imo ny, w hic h t he n infl ue nc e d He nd e r so n’s d e c isio n no t t o t e st ify, and ul t imat e l y l e d t o t he pr e jud ic e o f his c ase . This Co ur t is unw il l ing t o make suc h a l e ap. The t r ial c o ur t mad e no ac t ual d e c isio n ad v e r se t o He nd e r so n’s int e r e st s. No pr o o f fr o m t he r e c o r d d e mo nst r at e s t hat He nd e r so n mad e his d e c isio n no t t o t e st ify und e r a mist ake n assumpt io n t hat he w o ul d be r e quir e d t o que st io n himse l f. Ev e n if he w as r e st r ic t e d in suc h a manne r o f t e st imo ny, t hat d e c isio n w o ul d be w e l l w it hin t he d isc r e t io n o f t he t r ial c o ur t . As suc h, no r e v e r sibl e e r r o r o c c ur r e d . E. Suppression He nd e r so n fil e d t w o mo t io ns t o suppr e ss e v id e nc e : a mo t io n t o suppr e ss his st at e me nt , ar g uing t he st at e me nt w as il l e g al l y o bt aine d aft e r He nd e r so n had inv o ke d his r ig ht t o r e main sil e nt , and a mo t io n t o suppr e ss “fr uit s o f w ar r ant l e ss ar r e st o f t he d e fe nd ant ,” ar g uing t hat o ffic e r s had ar r e st e d him insid e his ho me w it ho ut a w ar r ant . On appe al , He nd e r so n o nl y al l e g e s t hat t he fir st mo t io n t o suppr e ss his st at e me nt t o po l ic e w as d e nie d in e r r o r by t he t r ial c o ur t . A he ar ing w as he l d o n t he fir st mo t io n o n Se pt e mbe r 11, 2012. At t he he ar ing , t he Co mmo nw e al t h pr e se nt e d t e st imo ny fr o m t he l e ad d e t e c t iv e . De t e c t iv e Kim Far me r . The d e fe nse pr e se nt e d no e v id e nc e in r e spo nse . 39 Ac c o r d ing t o De t . Far me r ’s t e st imo ny, t he po l ic e w e r e c al l e d t o t he sc e ne in t he e ar l y mo r ning ho ur s. De t . Far me r ar r iv e d at appr o ximat e l y 4:30 a.m. t hat mo r ning . He nd e r so n had al r e ad y be e n se c ur e d and he l d in t he bac kse at o f a po l ic e c r uise r . She at t e mpt e d t o init iat e que st io ning o f He nd e r so n, but he une quiv o c al l y inv o ke d his r ig ht t o r e main sil e nt , st at ing , “I ain’t g o nna w aiv e my r ig ht s.” De t . Far me r l e ft him in t he c r uise r w it h ano t he r o ffic e r and jo ine d t he inv e st ig at io n o f t he sc e ne , w hic h c o nt inue d fo r se v e r al ho ur s. Offic e r s o bt aine d se ar c h w ar r ant s fo r He nd e r so n’s c l o t hing and DNA. At appr o ximat e l y 10:30 a.m., o ffic e r s t o o k He nd e r so n insid e t he apar t me nt c o mpl e x t o e xe c ut e t he se ar c h w ar r ant fo r his c l o t hing , buc c al sw ab, as w e l l as pho t o g r aphs o f his pe r so n. Ac c o r d ing t o De t . Far me r , He nd e r so n be g an asking o ffic e r s que st io ns abo ut t he e v id e nc e be ing t ake n. She t o l d him, in c l e ar t e r ms, t hat she w as unabl e t o d isc uss t he c ase w it h him be c ause he had inv o ke d his r ig ht t o r e main sil e nt ; he c o nt inue d t o ask que st io ns. Base d o n his c o nt inue d que st io ning o f o ffic e r s, w he n De t . Far me r r e t ur ne d He nd e r so n t o t he po l ic e c r uise r , she aske d him if he w ant e d t o spe ak w it h he r abo ut w hat had happe ne d . He t o l d he r ye s. He nd e r so n w as t r anspo r t e d t o t he Lo uisv il l e Me t r o Po l ic e De par t me nt (“LMPD”). De t . Far me r ag ain info r me d He nd e r so n o f his Miranda r ig ht s. He w aiv e d t ho se r ig ht s and sig ne d a w r it t e n w aiv e r . De t . Far me r int e r v ie w e d He nd e r so n fo r “se v e r al ho ur s,” ac c o r d ing t o he r t e st imo ny. He nd e r so n’s r e c o r d e d st at e me nt w it h De t . Far me r w as int r o d uc e d t hr o ug h ano t he r d e t e c t iv e , De t . To ny Gibso n, w it h t he Lo uisv il l e Po l ic e Se x 40 Cr ime s Unit ,14 and pl aye d fo r t he jur y. Dur ing t he int e r v ie w , He nd e r so n d id no t ad mit g uil t . He d e sc r ibe d a c o nse nsual e nc o unt e r w it h Al ic e , t he v ic t im. He nd e r so n c al ml y c l aime d his inno c e nc e t hr o ug ho ut t he int e r v ie w . His o v e r al l st at e me nt w as, fo r t he mo st par t , c o nsist e nt w it h t he d e fe nse he pr e se nt e d at t r ial . At De t . Far me r ’s insist e nc e t hat Al ic e d id no t har m he r se l f, He nd e r so n ad mit t e d t hat it w as o nl y t he t w o o f t he m in t he ho use . He e xpr e sse d c o nfusio n at w hat c o ul d hav e o c c ur r e d be c ause he insist e d he had no t har me d o r assaul t e d Al ic e . The mo st d amag ing po r t io n o f t he int e r v ie w w as w he n He nd e r so n v ac il l at e d as t o w he t he r he could hav e injur e d Al ic e , c o nv inc e d by De t . Far me r ’s st at e me nt s t hat so me t hing had t o hav e happe ne d t hat maybe he simpl y c o ul d no t r e me mbe r . He w o nd e r e d w he t he r he c o ul d hav e r e spo nd e d in se l f-d e fe nse as De t . Far me r had hypo t he size d . “[W]e ut il ize a c l e ar e r r o r st and ar d o f r e v ie w fo r fac t ual find ing s and a de novo st and ar d o f r e v ie w fo r c o nc l usio ns o f l aw ” in r e v ie w ing a t r ial c o ur t ’s d e nial o f a suppr e ssio n mo t io n. Jackson v. Commonwealth, 187 S.W.Sd 300, 305 (Ky. 2006). The fir st st e p e nt ail s a d e t e r minat io n “if t he fac t s fo und by t he t r ial jud g e ar e suppo r t e d by subst ant ial e v id e nc e ).]” Commonwealth v. Pride, 302 S.W.Sd 43, 49 (Ky. 2010). “[F]ind ing s o f fac t ar e c l e ar l y e r r o ne o us o nl y if t he y ar e manife st l y ag ainst t he w e ig ht o f t he e v id e nc e .” Frances v. Frances, 266 S.W.Sd 754, 756 (Ky. 2008) (c it ing Wells v. Wells, 412 S.W.2d 568, 571 14 No t abl y, He nd e r so n o bje c t e d t o his st at e me nt be ing ad mit t e d t hr o ug h a d e t e c t iv e o t he r t han De t . Far me r but w as o v e r r ul e d . This issue w as no t pr e se nt e d o n appe al . Ac c o r d ing t o De t . Gibso n at t r ial , De t . Far me r w as no l o ng e r w it h t he d e par t me nt d ue t o me d ic al pr o bl e ms. 41 (Ky. 1967)). The n, an appe l l at e c o ur t must d e t e r mine if t he t r ial jud g e had a “subst ant ial basis ” fo r find ing “t hat pr o babl e c ause e xist e d .” Pride, 302 S.W.3d at 49 (quo t ing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983)). The find ing s o f fac t mad e by t he t r ial c o ur t w e r e no t c l e ar l y e r r o ne o us; t he y w e r e c l e ar l y subst ant iat e d by De t . Far me r ’s t e st imo ny. As no o t he r w it ne sse s o r e v id e nc e w e r e pr e se nt e d , suc h find ing s ar e not manife st l y ag ainst t he w e ig ht o f t he e v id e nc e . Thus, w e hav e t he fo l l o w ing r e l e v ant fac t ual find ing s: He nd e r so n w as he l d in t he bac k o f a po l ic e c r uise r fo r o v e r 6 ho ur s; d ur ing t his t ime , he se e me d t o be r e l axe d and as c o mfo r t abl e as po ssibl e , sl e e ping o ft e n; he une quiv o c al l y inv o ke d his r ig ht t o r e main sil e nt at t he fir st init iat io n o f c o nt ac t ; He nd e r so n be g an t al king t o o ffic e r s w hil e t he y e xe c ut e d se ar c h w ar r ant s o n his pe r so n; aft e r He nd e r so n r e init iat e d c o nt ac t , De t . Far me r aske d if He nd e r so n w o ul d be w il l ing t o t al k abo ut t he inv e st ig at io n w it h he r and He nd e r so n said ye s; He nd e r so n w as t he n int e r v ie w e d by De t . Far me r fo r se v e r al ad d it io nal ho ur s. “In o r d e r t o use st at e me nt s, w he t he r e xc ul pat o r y o r inc ul pat o r y, mad e by a d e fe nd ant subje c t e d t o c ust o d ial int e r r o g at io n, t he pr o se c ut io n must d e mo nst r at e t hat t he [d e fe nd ant ] w as ad v ise d o f his Fift h Ame nd me nt r ig ht s, inc l ud ing t he r ig ht t o r e main sil e nt and t he r ig ht t o an at t o r ne y.” Cummings v. Commonwealth, 226 S.W.3d 62, 65 (Ky. 2007) (c it ing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966)). The “r ig ht s may be w aiv e d and t he st at e me nt s may be use d ag ainst t he d e fe nd ant if t he w aiv e r is kno w ing , v o l unt ar y, and int e l l ig e nt .” Cummings, 226 S.W.3d at 65 (c it ing Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444). Aft e r a 42 d e fe nd ant inv o ke s t he r ig ht t o an at t o r ne y, “he is no t subje e t t o fur t he r int e r r o g at io n by t he aut ho r it ie s unt il c o unse l has be e n mad e av ail abl e t o him, unl e ss t he ac c use d himse l f init iat e s fur t he r c o mmunic at io n, e xc hang e s, o r c o nv e r sat io ns w it h t he po l ic e .” Cummings, 226 S.W.3d at 65 (c it ing Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85 (1981)). Ad d it io nal l y, “[o ]nc e an ind iv id ual be ing que st io ne d has asse r t e d he r r ig ht t o r e main sil e nt , t he po l ic e must e nd t he int e r r o g at io n.” Buster v. Commonwealth, 364 S.W.3d 157, 163 (Ky. 2012). He r e , He nd e r so n c l e ar l y inv o ke d his r ig ht t o r e main sil e nt aft e r De t . Far me r fir st appr o ac he d him. Ac c o r d ing t o he r t e st imo ny, she info r me d him o f his Miranda r ig ht s and he pr o mpt l y inv o ke d t ho se r ig ht s and r e fuse d t o w aiv e t he m. Rig ht ful l y, De t . Far me r c ut o ff al l que st io ning . “[T]he Supr e me Co ur t has no t subse que nt l y r e ad Miranda as e st abl ishing a br ig ht -l ine r ul e t hat po l ic e may ne v e r r e t ur n t o que st io ning a suspe c t w ho has inv o ke d his r ig ht t o sil e nc e .” Id. (c it ing Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 102 (1975)). Onc e t he r ig ht t o an at t o r ne y has be e n inv o ke d , int e r r o g at io n must c e ase , and l aw e nfo r c e me nt cannot r e -init iat e c o nt ac t ; it is up t o a suspe c t inv o king t he r ig ht t o appr o ac h l aw e nfo r c e me nt fo r any fur t he r que st io ning t o c o nst it ut io nal l y o c c ur . See Cummings, 226 S.W.3d at 65 (c it ing Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484-85). Ho w e v e r , aft e r a suspe c t inv o ke s t he r ig ht t o r e main sil e nt , no suc h br ig ht -l ine r ul e has be e n c r e at e d . “[O]nc e t he r ig ht t o sil e nc e w as inv o ke d , Miranda d id no t c r e at e a pe r se pr o hibit io n o f ind e finit e d ur at io n o n any fur t he r que st io ning .” Buster, 364 S.W.3d at 163 (quo t ing Commonwealth v. Vanover, 689 S.W.3d 11, 12 (Ky. 1985)). Thus, “ad missibil it y 43 o f st at e me nt s o bt aine d aft e r t he pe r so n in c ust o d y has d e c id e d t o r e main sil e nt d e pe nd s und e r Miranda o n w he t he r his ‘r ig ht t o c ut o ff que st io ning ’ w as ‘sc r upul o usl y ho no r e d .’” Buster, 364 S.W.3d at 164 (quo t ing Mosley, 423 U.S. at 104 (quo t ing Miranda, 384 U.S. at 474)); see also Carlisle v. Commonwealth, 316 S.W.3d 892, 896 (Ky. App. 2010) (quo t ing Mosley, 423 U.S. at 104) (“[S]t at e me nt s mad e aft e r suc h an inv o c at io n ar e ad missibl e pr o v id e d t he aut ho r it ie s hav e ‘sc r upul o usl y ho no r e d ’ t he d e fe nd ant ’s r ig ht t o r e main sil e nt .”). The Co ur t l o o ks t o se v e r al fac t o r s in making t his d e t e r minat io n: (1) w he t he r t he suspe c t w as info r me d o f his Miranda r ig ht s be fo r e t he init ial int e r r o g at io n; (2) w he t he r t he o ffic e r ‘imme d iat e l y c e ase d t he int e r r o g at io n and d id no t t r y e it he r t o r e sume t he que st io ning o r in any w ay pe r suad e [t he suspe c t ] t o r e c o nsid e r his po sit io n’ o nc e t he suspe c t inv o ke d his r ig ht t o sil e nc e ; (3) t he d iffe r e nc e s in t he c ir c umst anc e s be t w e e n t he o r ig inal and subse que nt int e r r o g at io n, suc h as w he t he r it w as abo ut t he same o r d iffe r e nt o ffe nse , t he l e ng t h o f t ime be t w e e n t he t w o int e r r o g at io ns, w he t he r it w as c o nd uc t e d in a d iffe r e nt l o c at io n, and w he t he r it w as c o nd uc t e d by a d iffe r e nt o ffic e r ; and (4) w he t he r t he suspe c t w as r e -info r me d o f t he Miranda r ig ht s be fo r e t he se c o nd int e r r o g at io n. Buster, 364 S.W.3d at 164 (quo t ing Mosley, 423 U.S. at 104-05). Appl ying t he se fac t o r s, t he t o t al it y o f t he c ir c umst anc e s suppo r t s t he t r ial c o ur t ’s find ing t hat He nd e r so n’s st at e me nt s w e r e mad e v o l unt ar il y, r at he r t han be ing t he pr o d uc t o f any kind o f c o e r c io n. He nd e r so n w as info r me d o f his Miranda r ig ht s at t he t ime o f t he init ial e nc o unt e r w it h De t . Far me r . At t hat po int , aft e r inv o c at io n, De t . Far me r imme d iat e l y c e ase d que st io ning and l e ft He nd e r so n t o inv e st ig at e t he sc e ne , ho no r ing t he inv o c at io n o f his r ig ht . The t hir d fac t o r w e ig hs t o w ar d s He nd e r so n’s ar g ume nt ; t he same o ffic e r w as inv o l v e d w it h bo t h int e r r o g at io ns and que st io ning o c c ur r e d at t he po l ic e c r uise r 44 o n t he sc e ne . Ho w e v e r , und e r t he fo ur t h fac t o r , He nd e r so n w as t ake n t o a d iffe r e nt ar e a, t he LMPD, and his Miranda r ig ht s w e r e ag ain e xpl aine d be fo r e t he int e r r o g at io n be g an. He e v e n aske d que st io ns abo ut t ho se r ig ht s w hic h De t . Far me r answ e r e d o pe nl y. He sig ne d a w aiv e r o f r ig ht s and answ e r e d que st io ns fo r t he ne xt fe w ho ur s w it ho ut ag ain r e -inv o king any o f t ho se r ig ht s. In Buster, t he d e fe nd ant inv o ke d he r r ig ht t o r e main sil e nt . 364 S.W.3d at 164. Offic e r s init ial l y st o ppe d que st io ning he r and c o nt ac t e d t he so c ial w o r ke r inv o l v e d in t he c ase t o l e t him kno w she had c ho se n t o r e main sil e nt . Id. Ho w e v e r , r at he r t han l e av ing t he d e fe nd ant al o ne , t he so c ial w o r ke r aske d t he o ffic e r t o t r y t o find o ut if t he d e fe nd ant w o ul d spe ak w it h him. Id. The o ffic e r al mo st imme d iat e l y r e t ur ne d t o t he d e fe nd ant and aske d if she w o ul d spe ak w it h t he so c ial w o r ke r , t o w hic h she c o nse nt e d . Id. The so c ial w o r ke r t he n spe nt t he ne xt hal f ho ur w it h d e fe nd ant , at t e mpt ing t o c o nv inc e t he d e fe nd ant t o spe ak w it h l aw e nfo r c e me nt . Id. “[T]he se ac t io ns c o nst it ut e d an at t e mpt by [t he o ffic e r ] and [so c ial w o r ke r ] t o t r y t o ‘pe r suad e [d e fe nd ant ] t o r e c o nsid e r ’ he r inv o c at io n o f he r r ig ht t o r e main sil e nt .” Id. (quo t ing Mosley, 423 U.S. at 105). Whil e Mosley pr e se nt e d “t w o d ist inc t int e r r o g at io ns w it h a d e fine d br e ak in be t w e e n”, t he d e fe nd ant in Buster “was e sse nt ial l y in c o nst ant c o nt ac t w it h ” t he o ffic e r and so c ial w o r ke r . Buster, 364 S.W.3d at 166. In Buster, t he Co ur t d e t e r mine d t hat t he l aw e nfo r c e me nt o ffic e r ’s ac t io ns w e r e al l int e nd e d t o c o nv inc e t he d e fe nd ant t o c hang e he r mind abo ut inv o king he r c o nst it ut io nal l y pr o t e c t e d r ig ht t o r e main sil e nt . Id. at 168. 45 He r e , De t . Far me r d id no t at t e mpt t o c o nv inc e He nd e r so n t o w aiv e his r ig ht s. Aft e r he d e c id e d t o r e main sil e nt , she l e ft him al o ne and d id no t at t e mpt fur t he r int e r r o g at io n. Se v e r al ho ur s had passe d be fo r e she had any fur t he r c o nt ac t w it h He nd e r so n. It w as o nl y aft e r He nd e r so n c o nt inue d t o spe ak t o o ffic e r s d ur ing t he e xe c ut io n o f t he se ar c h w ar r ant s t hat De t . Far me r aske d if he w o ul d be w il l ing t o spe ak w it h he r . He nd e r so n imme d iat e l y r e spo nd e d t hat he w o ul d be so w il l ing . Rat he r t han inst ant l y be g inning que st io ning , De t . Far me r had He nd e r so n t r anspo r t e d t o LMPD and r e -info r me d him o f his r ig ht s be fo r e que st io ning be g an. He nd e r so n had an o ppo r t unit y t o c o nsid e r his o pt io ns and his r ig ht s and st il l c ho se t o w aiv e his r ig ht t o r e main sil e nt . Al l t he c ir c umst anc e s suppo r t t he t r ial c o ur t ’s find ing t hat He nd e r so n’s st at e me nt w as kno w ing , v o l unt ar y, and int e l l ig e nt and , t he r e fo r e , ad missibl e . Al t ho ug h He nd e r so n at t e mpt s t o c o nv inc e t his Co ur t t hat he w as c o e r c e d int o making a st at e me nt , t he r e is no t hing in t he r e c o r d t o suppo r t suc h a c o nc l usio n. He ar g ue s t hat t he v o l unt ar ine ss o f his st at e me nt w as und e r mine d by c o e r c iv e t ac t ic s. To suppo r t t his al l e g e d c o e r c io n, He nd e r so n c it e s t o t he l e ng t hy amo unt o f t ime he r e maine d in t he po l ic e c r uise r at t he sc e ne and He nd e r so n’s d r ug use t he pr io r e v e ning . Ho w e v e r , t he o nl y e v id e nc e be fo r e t he t r ial c o ur t o n t his mo t io n w as De t . Far me r ’s t e st imo ny. Whil e He nd e r so n w as in t he po l ic e c r uise r fo r se v e r al ho ur s, a fac t t hat , ad mit t e d l y, se e ms unne c e ssar y fo r pr o pe r inv e st ig at io n, t he r e is no t hing t o suppo r t t he c o nc l usio n t hat t he l e ng t hy d e l ay c ause d any kind o f und ue pr e ssur e . Ad d it io nal l y, t his d e l ay al so suppo r t s find ing t hat , by t he t ime int e r r o g at io n 46 st ar t e d , it se e me d t he e ffe c t s o f any il l ic it subst anc e s had subst ant ial l y w o r n o ff. Fr o m t he r e v ie w o f t he int e r r o g at io n, He nd e r so n se e me d al e r t , c o he r e nt , and abl e and w il l ing t o answ e r any and al l que st io ns. The r e is no t hing in t his r e c o r d t o suppo r t a ho l d ing t hat He nd e r so n’s st at e me nt s w e r e c o e r c e d . As suc h, t he t r ial c o ur t d id no t e r r in find ing He nd e r so n’s st at e me nt t o be v o l unt ar y, int e l l ig e nt , and kno w ing . The ad missio n o f t he r e c o r d e d st at e me nt d id no t o ffe nd He nd e r so n’s c o nst it ut io nal r ig ht s. F. Rape Shield Law He nd e r so n al so c l aims a c o nst it ut io nal e r r o r in an e r r o ne o us l imit at io n o f his d e fe nse und e r KRE 412. Dur ing d isc ussio n o n t he mo r ning o f t r ial w it h t he c o ur t , t he Co mmo nw e al t h st at e d t hat it had no t r e c e iv e d any no t ic e und e r KRE 412 and t hus, it w o ul d mo v e t o e xc l ud e any me nt io n o f t he v ic t im’s se xual hist o r y, w it h He nd e r so n o r o t he r w ise . He nd e r so n d id no t o bje c t ; t he jud g e e xpl aine d t hat He nd e r so n c o ul d no t ask Al ic e abo ut any pr io r se xUal e xpe r ie nc e s if it o c c ur r e d pr io r t o t his inc id e nt . He nd e r so n aske d t he c o ur t abo ut t he d ay o f t he inc id e nt , as his c l aim w as t hat t he al l e g e d assaul t w as a c o nse nsual e nc o unt e r . The t r ial c o ur t st at e d t hat He nd e r so n c o ul d ask que st io ns abo ut t hat d ay. He nd e r so n d id no t o bje c t t o suc h a r ul ing . The Co mmo nw e al t h c al l e d Al ic e as it s fir st w it ne ss. He nd e r so n c o nd uc t e d a t ho r o ug h c r o ss-e xaminat io n. He que st io ne d Al ic e as t o ; he r injur ie s and ho w t he y o c c ur r e d ; he r st at e me nt s t o inv e st ig at o r s; inc o nsist e nc ie s be t w e e n st at e me nt s and t he physic al po ssibil it y o f he r injur ie s base d o n he r nar r at iv e ; he r d r ug use ; he r past int e r ac t io ns w it h He nd e r so n; 47 po t e nt ial bias c ausing he r t o l ie (t o maint ain he r r e l at io nship aft e r a c o nse nsual e nc o unt e r w it h He nd e r so n); and he r be ing und e r t he infl ue nc e o f d r ug s t he e v e ning o f t he assaul t . De spit e t he c o ur t ’s r ul ing o n KRE 412, He nd e r so n st il l at t e mpt e d t o ask Al ic e abo ut past se xual e nc o unt e r s. H:15 So , yo u said yo u c o me o v e r t o t he ho use . I suppo se d l y c ho ke yo u o ut . I suppo se d l y pe ne t r at e yo u w it h my fing e r . I suppo se d l y kiss yo ur br e ast s. I suppo se d l y d o ne al l t his [unintelligible] g o ing t hr o ug h al l t his, happe ne d a t ho usand t ime s be fo r e . So t his nig ht - w hat make t his nig ht any d iffe r e nt t han any o t he r nig ht ? A: 16 What happe ne d a t ho usand t ime s be fo r e ? H: I ask t he que st io ns. The jud g e c al l e d t he par t ie s t o t he be nc h. He t o l d t he par t ie s he int e r pr e t e d t hat que st io n t o r e fe r t o Al ic e ’s past se xual c o nd uc t w it h any other pe r so n and inst r uc t e d He nd e r so n t o l imit his que st io ning t o t his par t ic ul ar e v e nt . Whe n he r e sume d que st io ning , He nd e r so n ag ain aske d Al ic e , w hat mad e t hat nig ht so d iffe r e nt fr o m al l t he o t he r t ime s Al ic e had be e n t he r e . Al ic e r e spo nd e d , “Ar e yo u saying w e ’v e had so me kind o f r e l at io nship g o ing ?” He nd e r so n aske d w hy he w o ul d sud d e nl y d o so me t hing l ike t his t o Al ic e o n t his e v e ning and she r e spo nd e d , “I d o n’t kno w w hat po sse sse d yo u t o d o so me t hing l ike t hat t o me .” Lat e r , He nd e r so n r e sume d his que st io ning abo ut a pr io r r e l at io nship. H: So me and yo u d id no t hav e a r e l at io nship? A: Abso l ut e l y no t . H: I ne v e r kisse d yo ur br e ast s be fo r e ? A: Ye s, yo u d id t hat nig ht . H: I ne v e r r an my hand s - 15 He nd e r so n 16 Al ic e 48 A: Whil e my hand s w e r e t ie d be hind my bac k. Yo u fo r c e ful l y d id it . H: No w she c an make t hat kind o f st at e me nt but 1 c an’t fo r c ibl y say t hat t he o nl y r e aso n she make t his is st at e me nt is be c ause yo u CW;17 Yo ur Ho no r , c an w e appr o ac h? He nd e r so n c o nt inue d t o ang r il y spe ak as t he par t ie s appr o ac he d t he be nc h. The c o ur t o r d e r e d t he jur y t o t ake a r e st r o o m br e ak. Rat he r t han be ing ang r y abo ut be ing r e st r ic t e d fr o m asking abo ut a pr io r r e l at io nship, He nd e r so n w as ang r y abo ut be ing unabl e t o d e l v e int o t he reasons fo r w hy Al ic e w o ul d be l ying , inc l ud ing t he fac t t hat he said she fe ar e d be ing c aug ht hig h and l o sing c ust o d y o f he r d aug ht e r . The c o ur t ’s inst r uc t io n t o He nd e r so n at t his t ime fo c use d o n He nd e r so n be ing fo r c e d t o ask que st io ns and al l o w Al ic e t o answ e r ; t he c o ur t r e st r ic t e d He nd e r so n fr o m asking abo ut c o l l at e r al mat t e r s, l ike Al ic e ’s e xpe r ie nc e in d r ug c o ur t in 2006, l o sing he r c hil d in 2006, and hav ing se x w it h o t he r me n. Aft e r t he br e ak, He nd e r so n aske d a fe w mo r e que st io ns be fo r e e nd ing his c r o ss-e xaminat io n. Und e r KRE 412(a), “e v id e nc e o ffe r e d t o pr o v e ” e it he r “t hat any al l e g e d v ic t im e ng ag e d in o t he r se xual be hav io r ” o r “any al l e g e d v ic t im’s se xual pr e d ispo sit io n” is inad missibl e . Ho w e v e r , in a c r iminal t r ial , und e r KRE 412(b), “e v id e nc e o f spe c ific inst anc e s o f se xual be hav io r by t he al l e g e d v ic t im o ffe r e d t o pr o v e t hat a pe r so n o t he r t han t he ac c use d w as t he so ur c e o f se me n, injur y, o r o t he r physic al e v id e nc e ” and “e v id e nc e o f spe c ific inst anc e s o f se xual be hav io r by t he al l e g e d v ic t im w it h r e spe c t t o t he pe r so n ac c use d o f t he se xual 17 Co mmo nw e al t h 49 misc o nd uc t o ffe r e d by t he ac c use d t o pr o v e c o nse nt o r by t he pr o se c ut io n” ar e ad missibl e , if ad missibl e und e r t he o t he r r ul e s o f e v id e nc e . The r ul e s al so al l o w “o t he r e v id e nc e d ir e c t l y pe r t aining t o t he o ffe nse c har g e d ” t o be ad missibl e . Any pe r so n int e nd ing t o int r o d uc e e v id e nc e pur suant t o KRE 412(b) must pr o v id e w r it t e n no t ic e at l e ast 14 d ays pr io r t o t r ial . KRE 412(c )(1)(A). The r ul e al so r e quir e s t hat t he c o ur t c o nd uc t an in camera he ar ing pr io r t o ad mit t ing suc h e v id e nc e . KRE 412(c )(2). The pr e se r v at io n o f t his issue is que st io nabl e , at be st . Whe n t he Co mmo nw e al t h o bje c t e d t o any KRE 412 e v id e nc e be ing ad mit t e d , He nd e r so n d id no t o bje c t . He aske d fo r c l ar ific at io n as t o w he t he r he c o ul d ask abo ut c o nse nsual ac t s o n t he d ay o f t he al l e g e d assaul t and t he t r ial c o ur t info r me d him he c o ul d . He d id no t o bje c t d ur ing que st io ning t o t his l imit at io n. Inst e ad , he w as c o nc e r ne d abo ut t he r e st r ic t io n o f que st io ning Al ic e abo ut past c o l l at e r al inc id e nt s. He nd e r so n al l e g e s t hat t his “e r r o r ” affe c t e d his c o nst it ut io nal r ig ht t o pr e se nt a d e fe nse . Ho w e v e r , e v e n c o nst it ut io nal e r r o r s ar e subje c t t o pr o c e d ur al r ul e s and w aiv e r . See West v. Commonwealth, 780 S.W.2d 600, 602 (Ky. 1980) (c it ing Futrell v. Commonwealth, 437 S.W.2d 487, 488 (Ky. 1969) and Brown v. Commonwealth, 551 S.W.2d 557 (Ky. 1977)). Ev e n assuming t he e r r o r w as pr e se r v e d , suc h e r r o r w o ul d be no t hing mo r e t han har ml e ss. The t r ial c o ur t d id misst at e t he r ul e und e r KRE 412. If He nd e r so n w as pr e se nt ing a c o nse nt d e fe nse , t he n he w as e nt it l e d t o ask abo ut pr io r c o nse nsual e xpe r ie nc e s be t w e e n him and t he v ic t im. Ho w e v e r , he d id ask t ho se que st io ns. And Al ic e une quiv o c al l y d e nie d any suc h 50 r e l at io nship. Ev e n if he w as pr e v e nt e d fr o m asking fur t he r que st io ns by t he e r r o ne o us KRE 412 st at e me nt , he w o ul d hav e be e n pr e v e nt e d fr o m c o nt inuing t o ask he r que st io ns t o w hic h she had al r e ad y answ e r e d a c l e ar “no .” Ho w e v e r w e r e v ie w t his issue , He nd e r so n aske d abo ut t he pr io r r e l at io nship. Al ic e d e nie d suc h a r e l at io nship. He nd e r so n’s r ig ht t o pr e se nt a d e fe nse w as no t inhibit e d . At mo st , any e r r o r he r e w as har ml e ss. G. Recalling a Witness As st at e d , t he Co mmo nw e al t h c al l e d Al ic e as it s fir st w it ne ss. Aft e r d ir e c t e xaminat io n, He nd e r so n st at e d he w as no t pr e par e d t o c r o ss-e xamine ; he t o l d t he c o ur t he t ho ug ht he c o ul d c al l t he w it ne ss w he n he w ant e d t o c al l t he w it ne ss. The c o ur t t o l d He nd e r so n t hat she w as an inmat e t r anspo r t e d fr o m ano t he r st at e , so He nd e r so n’s o ppo r t unit y t o c o nfr o nt and c r o ss he r w as at t hat t ime o nl y. He nd e r so n aske d if he c o ul d no t r e c al l Al ic e l at e r and t he c o ur t t o l d him, no . He nd e r so n t he n aske d fo r a r e c e ss t o r e t r ie v e and r e v ie w mat e r ial s t o pr e par e fo r Al ic e ’s c r o ss-e xaminat io n. The c o ur t t o o k a l e ng t hy l unc h br e ak t o al l o w He nd e r so n t ime t o pr e par e . Aft e r r e t ur ning , He nd e r so n d id o bje c t t o t he c o ur t ’s l imit at io n o n t he abil it y t o r e c al l Al ic e as a w it ne ss, c l aiming t hat fut ur e w it ne sse s c o ul d c o nt r ad ic t he r , and she sho ul d be subje c t t o r e c al l and impe ac hme nt . This Co ur t has issue d a r e c e nt , al be it unpubl ishe d , c ase d ir e c t l y o n po int w it h He nd e r so n’s al l e g e d e r r o r . In Holbrook v. Commonwealth, 2012-SC- 000703-MR, 2014 WL 4160137, *5 (Ky. Aug . 21, 2014), a pr o se d e fe nd ant al l e g e d r e v e r sibl e e r r o r in t he t r ial c o ur t ’s d e c isio n t o pr o hibit him fr o m 51 r e c al l ing a w it ne ss. The w it ne ss w as r e quir e d t o be at w o r k t he ne xt mo r ning at 3:00 a.m., so t he t r ial c o ur t d e t e r mine d it w o ul d r e l e ase t he w it ne ss aft e r c r o ss-e xaminat io n. Id. Cit ing t o Mullikan, 341 S.W.3d at 104, t his Co ur t he l d suc h a d e c isio n w as w it hin t he d isc r e t io n o f t he c o ur t . Id. The d e c isio n w as “suppo r t e d by so und l e g al pr inc ipl e s.” Id. (quo t ing Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999)). “[T]he t r ial c o ur t had inhe r e nt aut ho r it y t o c o nt r o l t he t r ial pr o c e e d ing s and spe c ific aut ho r it y und e r KRE 611 (a) t o c o nt r o l t he mo d e o f int e r r o g at io n o f w it ne sse s.” Mullikan, 341 S.W.3d at 104. Al ic e w as an o ut -o f-st at e pr iso ne r at t he t ime o f he r t e st imo ny. She had be e n t r ansfe r r e d fr o m ano t he r st at e ’s inst it ut io n t o t e st ify ag ainst He nd e r so n. The c o ur t w as w it hin it s d isc r e t io n t o d e t e r mine it w as unne c e ssar y t o ho l d he r in t he l o c al jail , at t he e xpe nse o f t axpaye r s, fo r l o ng e r t han ne c e ssar y. This d e c isio n w as no t ar bit r ar y. He nd e r so n w as t o l d pr io r t o c r o ss-e xaminat io n t hat Al ic e w o ul d no t be subje c t t o r e c al l . The t r ial c o ur t al so g av e He nd e r so n a l e ng t hy br e ak t o pr e par e fo r c r o ss-e xaminat io n. Suc h a d e c isio n w as no t an abuse o f d isc r e t io n. III. CONCLUSION Fo r t he fo r e g o ing r e aso ns, t his Co ur t affir ms, in al l r e spe c t s, t he jud g me nt o f t he Je ffe r so n Cir c uit Co ur t . Al l sit t ing . Hug he s, Ke l l e r , VanMe t e r and Wr ig ht , JJ., c o nc ur . Ve nt e r s, J., d isse nt s by se par at e o pinio n in w hic h Mint o n, C.J., and Cunning ham, J., jo in. 52 VENTERS, J., DISSENTING; I r e spe c t ful l y d isag r e e w it h t he Majo r it y’s appl ic at io n o f c o nst it ut io nal spe e d y t r ial pr inc ipl e s. As t o o o ft e n in t he past , t his Co ur t has ag ain und e r v al ue d t he impo r t ant func t io n se r v e d by t he anc ie nt r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial and , in t his inst anc e , c ast s a bl ind e ye t o a t r ial jud g e ’s injud ic io us l ac k o f at t e nt io n t o t his c ase . Mo r e o v e r , t he t r ial jud g e e xac e r bat e d his ye ar s o f passiv e ne g l e c t by unr e aso nabl y, and I be l ie v e o ut r ag e o usl y, e xt e nd ing pr e t r ial d e l ay fo r mo r e t han a ye ar by subje c t ing He nd e r so n t o a me nt al he al t h e v al uat io n simpl y be c ause he pe r sist e nt l y e spo use d his r e l ig io us fait h in t r ust ing his l e g al fat e t o t he Lo r d . The Majo r it y g l o sse s o v e r t he t r ial jud g e ’s d e fic ie nc ie s w it h r e fe r e nc e s t o t he c r o w d e d d o c ke t o f t he Je ffe r so n Co unt y Co ur t . We sho ul d no t o v e r l o o k t he ir o ny in t he fac t t hat t he same Je ffe r so n Cir c uit Co ur t t o w hic h w e g e ne r o usl y asc r ibe an o v e r c r o w d e d t r ial d o c ke t st at e d in t he ar r aig nme nt in t his v e r y c ase , “The Court will strive to move each felony criminal case from arraignment to resolution within 180 to 365 days.” That same c o ur t al l o w e d 1,672 d ays t o pass be t w e e n He nd e r so n’s ar r e st and his t r ial . The r e c o r d sho w s no e ffo r t o n t he par t o f t he t r ial jud g e t o g e t t his e xpe d it io usl y t o t r ial . Sinc e 1972, spe e d y t r ial anal ysis has be e n g uid e d by t he Unit e d St at e s Supr e me Co ur t o pinio n in Barker v Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). As e xpl aine d be l o w , t he Majo r it y misc o nst r ue s t he r e quir e me nt o f sho w ing pr e jud ic e and t he r e by it impr o pe r l y d iminishe s t he pr imar y pr e jud ic e t hat t he r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial is hist o r ic al l y int e nd e d t o pr e v e nt . 53 He nd e r so n se e ks t he r e v e r sal o f his c o nv ic t io n be c ause his Co nst it ut io nal r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial w as v io l at e d d ur ing t he fo ur -and -a-hal f- ye ar d e l ay be t w e e n his ar r e st and his t r ial . Barker v. Wingo “pl ac e s t he pr imar y bur d e n o n t he [t r ial ] c o ur t s and t he pr o se c ut o r s t o assur e t hat c ase s ar e br o ug ht t o t r ial .” 407 U.S. at 529; see also Amos v. Thornton, 646 F.3d 199, 207 (5t h Cir . 2011) (“The bur d e n is o n t he Go v e r nme nt t o assig n[ ] r e aso ns t o just ify t he d e l ay.”) (c it ing United States v. Ingram, 446 F.3d 1332, 1337 (11t h Cir . 2006) (“‘Be c ause t he pr o se c ut o r and t he c o ur t hav e an affir mat iv e c o nst it ut io nal o bl ig at io n t o t r y t he d e fe nd ant in a t ime l y manne r . . . t he bur d e n is o n t he pr o se c ut io n t o e xpl ain t he c ause o f t he pr e -t r ial d e l ay.”’ (quo t ing United States v. Brown, 169 F.3d 344, 349 (6t h Cir . 1999))); McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 827 (9t h Cir . 2003) (c o l l e c t ing c ase s)). 1 w il l no t be l abo r t he t ime l ine o f e v e nt s t hat fil l e d t he fo ur and hal f ye ar s t hat He nd e r so n r e maine d inc ar c e r at e d be c ause he c o ul d no t po st t he $500,000 ful l -c ash bail se t by t he t r ial jud g e . Thr e e mat e r ial fac t s t hing s st and o ut : Fir st , He nd e r so n mad e t w o v e r y r o ut ine pr e t r ial mo t io ns t o suppr e ss e v id e nc e and e v id e nt iar y he ar ing w e r e he l d o n t ho se mo t io ns. The t r ial c o ul d no t be g in unt il t he jud g e d e c id e d t ho se mo t io ns; ind e e d , in t he o r d inar y c ase , a l aw ye r c anno t e v e n pr e par e fo r t r ial w it ho ut kno w ing t he jud g e ’s d e c isio ns o n t ho se mo t io ns. In t o t al , twenty-seven months, mo r e t han t w o ye ar s, passe d fr o m t he fil ing o f He nd e r so n’s fir st suppr e ssio n mo t io n and t he t r ial c o ur t ’s r ul ing . He nd e r so n l ang uishe d in jail , unabl e t o make a v e r y hig h c ash bo nd , w ait ing fo r t he t r ial jud g e t o d e c id e a r o ut ine suppr e ssio n o f e v id e nc e issue . 54 Se c o nd , He nd e r so n mad e pe r sist e nt mo t io ns fo r a spe e d y a t r ial w he n it be c ame e v id e nt t hat his c ase w as be ing ne g l e c t e d , t hus it c anno t be said t hat he w aiv e d his r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial . The Majo r it y faul t s He nd e r so n fo r t r ying t o g e t a ne w l aw ye r , o r t o r e pr e se nt himse l f, but ig no r e s t he fac t t hat he d id so be c ause his o w n at t o r ne ys w e r e unabl e o r unw il l ing t o se c ur e his r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial . Thir d , mo r e t han t hr e e ye ar s aft e r his ar r aig nme nt , and w it hin a fe w w e e ks o f his t r ial d at e , t he t r ial jud g e c hal l e ng e d sua sponte He nd e r so n’s c o mpe t e nc y and subje c t e d He nd e r so n t o an inv o l unt ar y me nt al he al t h e v al uat io n be c ause he t o l d t he jud g e , in fr ust r at io n aft e r mo r e t han t hr e e ye ar s o f pr e t r ial inc ar c e r at io n; Be fo r e 1 c o me int o t his c o ur t , 1 al w ays ask Go d t o g iv e me a w o r d if t he r e is a w o r d fo r me t o spe ak. He just w ant e d me t o info r m yo u t hat I w o n’t be ne e d ing a l aw ye r . Fr o m he r e o n o ut , t he Lo r d Go d is g o ing t o be my d e fe nse . He ’s g o ing t o fig ht my c ause . No one is concerned about my cause in this courtroom like He is, and no one is trying to fight my cause like He is. So, from this point on, from this day forward, [my attorney] is dismissed. The Lord will fight my cause from this point on. The t r ial jud g e st at e d in his o r d e r fo r t he e v al uat io n: “Mr . He nd e r so n’s appar e nt be l ie f t hat Go d o r t he Lo r d c an r e pr e se nt him at t r ial g iv e s t he c o ur t c o nc e r n o v e r Mr . He nd e r so n’s c o mpe t e nc y.” Aft e r t hr e e ye ar s o f pr e -t r ial pr o c e e d ing s, t he t r ial jud g e sud d e nl y fo und He nd e r so n’s r e l ig io n t o be a c o nc e r n fo r his me nt al c o mpe t e nc e . The me nt al he al t h o ffic ial s w ho e v al uat e d He nd e r so n fo und abso l ut e l y no basis t o d o ubt his c o mpe t e nc e , and I submit t hat anyo ne w at c hing t he v id e o r e c o r d ing s o f t his c ase w o ul d ag r e e . The t r ial 55 jud g e ’s unw ar r ant e d and il l -c o nsid e r e d me nt al he al t h e v al uat io n o r d e r ad d e d o v e r o ne ye ar t o t he d e l ay, d ur ing w hic h He nd e r so n r e maine d inc ar c e r at e d . To g e t he r , by fail ing t o r ul e o n suppr e ssio n mo t io ns in a t ime l y manne r and by it s spur io us o r d e r fo r a me nt al he al t h e v al uat io n o f He nd e r so n, t he t r ial jud g e ad d e d o v e r t hr e e ye ar s t o t he pr e t r ial d e l ay. 1 find t hat t o be a t o t al d isr e g ar d fo r t he l ibe r t y o f an ind iv id ual c har g e d w it h a se r io us c r ime and unabl e t o c o me up w it h a hal f-mil l io n d o l l ar s in c ash fo r bail . Base d upo n t ho se fac t s, 1 und e r t ake a r e v ie w o f t he r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial . A. The Right to a Speedy Trial The Sixt h Ame nd me nt o f t he Unit e d St at e s Co nst it ut io n and Se c t io n 11 o f t he Ke nt uc ky Co nst it ut io n g uar ant e e an ac c use d pe r so n t he r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial .18 As t he Majo r it y no t e s, o ur spe e d y t r ial jur ispr ud e nc e is g uid e d by Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). Whil e Barker e mphasize d t hat e ac h c ase must be e v al uat e d o n it s o w n fac t s, it pr o v id e s a bal anc ing t e st o f fo ur fac t o r s t o be asse sse d in d e t e r mining w he t he r a d e fe nd ant ’s r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial w as v io l at e d . Tho se fac t o r s ar e : 1. The l e ng t h o f d e l ay; 2. t he r e aso n fo r t he d e l ay; 3. w aiv e r , o r t he d e fe nd ant ’s asse r t io n o f his r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial and ; 4. pr e jud ic e t o t he d e fe nd ant . 18 RCr 9.02 al so pr o v id e s t hat “t r ial s o f al l pe r so ns in c ust o d y und e r ar r e st shal l be he l d as pr o mpt l y as r e aso nabl y po ssibl e .” 56 Id. at 530. The fo ur fac t o r s must be e v al uat e d t o g e t he r , w it h no sing l e fac t o r be ing d e t e r minat iv e o f w he t he r a spe e d y t r ial v io l at io n has o c c ur r e d . Id. at 533. Barker w as w r it t e n t o c o mpl e me nt a pr e v io us d e c isio n o f t he Unit e d St at e s Supr e me Co ur t : Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967). In Klopfer, t he Supr e me Co ur t d e t ail e d t he anc ie nt o r ig in o f t he r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial ; it is a hist o r y w e l l -w o r t h r e me mbe r ing . Klopfer d e sc r ibe s t he r ig ht t o a spe e d y as “o ne o f t he mo st basic r ig ht s pr e se r v e d by o ur Co nst it ut io n,” id. at 226, and “as fund ame nt al as any o f t he r ig ht s se c ur e d by t he Sixt h Ame nd me nt ,” id. at 223. Klopfer r e mind s us t hat t he “r ig ht [t o a spe e d y t r ial ] has it s r o o t s at t he v e r y fo und at io n o f o ur Eng l ish l aw he r it ag e . It s fir st ar t ic ul at io n in mo d e r n jur ispr ud e nc e appe ar s t o hav e be e n mad e in Mag na Car t a (1215);” t hat as w r it t e n by Sir Ed w ar d Co ke in Par t II o f his Inst it ut e s, just ic e s in Eng l and “hav e no t suffe r e d t he pr iso ne r t o be l o ng d e t aine d , but at t he ir ne xt c o ming hav e g iv e n t he pr iso ne r ful l and spe e d y just ic e .” Klopfer explains t hat “[t ]o Co ke , pr o l o ng e d d e t e nt io n w it ho ut t r ial w o ul d hav e be e n c o nt r ar y t o t he l aw and c ust o m o f Eng l and ; but he also believed that the delay in trial, by itself, would be an improper denial of justice.” (e mphasis ad d e d ). Kl o pfe r no t e s: Co ke ’s Inst it ut e s w e r e r e ad in t he Ame r ic an Co l o nie s by v ir t ual l y e v e r y st ud e nt o f t he l aw . Ind e e d , Tho mas Je ffe r so n w r o t e t hat at t he t ime he st ud ie d l aw (1762—1767), ‘Co ke Lyt t l e t o n w as t he univ e r sal e l e me nt ar y bo o k o f l aw st ud e nt s.’ And t o Jo hn Rut l e d g e o f So ut h Car o l ina, t he Inst it ut e s se e me d ‘t o be al mo st t he fo und at io n o f o ur l aw .’ To Co ke , in t ur n, Mag na Car t a w as o ne o f t he fund ame nt al base s o f Eng l ish l ibe r t y. Thus, it is no t sur pr ising 57 t hat w he n Ge o r g e Maso n d r aft e d t he fir st o f t he c o l o nial bil l s o f r ig ht s, he se t fo r t h a pr inc ipl e o f Mag na Car t a, using phr ase o l o g y simil ar t o t hat o f Co ke ’s e xpl ic at io n; ‘(l )n al l c apit al o r c r iminal pr o se c ut io ns,’ t he Vir g inia De c l ar at io n o f Rig ht s o f 1776 pr o v id e d , ‘a man hat h a r ig ht ... t o a spe e d y t r ial . . . .’ That t his r ig ht w as c o nsid e r e d fund ame nt al at t his e ar l y pe r io d in o ur hist o r y is e v id e nc e d by it s g uar ant e e in t he c o nst it ut io ns o f se v e r al o f t he St at e s o f t he ne w nat io n, as w e l l as by it s pr o mine nt po sit io n in t he Sixt h Ame nd me nt . To d ay, e ac h o f t he 50 St at e s g uar ant e e s t he r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial t o it s c it ize ns. (Fo o t no t e s o mit t e d ). Id. at 223-26. What t his Co ur t has fail e d t o r e c o g nize fr o m hist o r y is, as Klopfer e mphasize s, t hat t he ac c use d ’s l ibe r t y int e r e st s ar e in je o par d y d ur ing l o ng pr e t r ial d e l ays. An ino r d inat e l y l o ng pr e t r ial pr o se c ut io n c an subje c t an ac c use d t o “publ ic sc o r n and d e pr iv e him o f e mpl o yme nt , and al mo st c e r t ainl y w il l fo r c e c ur t ail me nt o f his spe e c h, asso c iat io ns and par t ic ipat io n in unpo pul ar c ause s.” Id. at 222. The spe e d y t r ial r ig ht is “an impo r t ant safe g uar d t o pr e v e nt und ue and o ppr e ssiv e inc ar c e r at io n pr io r t o t r ial , t o minimize anxie t y and c o nc e r n ac c o mpanying publ ic ac c usat io n and t o l imit t he po ssibil it ie s t hat l o ng d e l ay w il l impair t he abil it y o f an ac c use d t o d e fe nd himse l f.” United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116, 120 (1966). In Dickey v. Florida, 398 U.S. 30, 37 (1970), t he Co ur t said , “The r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial is no t a t he o r e t ic al o r abst r ac t r ig ht but o ne r o o t e d in har d r e al it y in t he ne e d t o hav e c har g e s pr o mpt l y e xpo se d .” “The e v il s at w hic h t he Cl ause is d ir e c t e d ar e r e ad il y id e nt ifie d . It is int e nd e d t o spar e an ac c use d t ho se pe nal t ie s and d isabil it ie s —inc o mpat ibl e w it h t he pr e sumpt io n o f 58 inno c e nc e —t hat may spr ing fr o m d e l ay in t he c r iminal pr o c e ss.” Id. at 41 (Br e nnan, J. c o nc ur r ing ). In United States v. Marion, t he Supr e me Co ur t d e sc r ibe d t he r e st r aint s o n o ne ’s l ibe r t y by ar r e st , w he t he r fr e e o n bail o r no t , w hic h “may d isr upt his e mpl o yme nt , d r ain his financ ial r e so ur c e s, c ur t ail his asso c iat io ns, subje c t him t o publ ic o bl o quy, and c r e at e anxie t y in him, his famil y and his fr ie nd s ” as t he majo r e v il s pr o t e c t e d ag ainst by t he spe e d y t r ial g uar ant e e , e xist ing apar t fr o m ac t ual and po ssibl e pr e jud ic e t o an ac c use d fr o m fad e d me mo r ie s, inac c e ssibl e w it ne sse s, and l o st e v id e nc e . 404 U.S. 307, 320 (1971). “The spe e d y t r ial g uar ant e e is designed to minimize the possibility of lengthy incarceration prior to trial, t o r e d uc e t he l e sse r , but ne v e r t he l e ss subst ant ial impair me nt o f l ibe r t y impo se d o n an ac c use d w hil e r e l e ase d o n bail , and to shorten the disruption of life caused by arrest and the presence of unresolved criminal charges.” United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1, 8 (1982) (e mphasis ad d e d ). The Supr e me Co ur t has al so r e c o g nize d t hat t he anc ie nt r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial al so se r v e s, no t o nl y ac c use d ind iv id ual s ’ int e r e st s, but al so t he br o ad e r , publ ic just ic e int e r e st s: The Spe e d y Tr ial Cl ause pr o t e c t s so c ie t al int e r e st s, as w e l l as t ho se o f t he ac c use d . The publ ic is c o nc e r ne d w it h t he e ffe c t iv e pr o se c ut io n o f c r iminal c ase s, bo t h t o r e st r ain t ho se g uil t y o f c r ime and t o d e t e r t ho se c o nt e mpl at ing it . Just as d e l ay may impair t he abil it y o f t he ac c use d t o d e fe nd himse l f, so it may r e d uc e t he c apac it y o f t he g o v e r nme nt t o pr o v e it s c ase . Se e Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 264, 42 S.Ct . 309, 312, 66 L.Ed . 607 (1922). Mo r e o v e r , w hil e aw ait ing t r ial , an ac c use d w ho is at l ar g e may be c o me a fug it iv e fr o m just ic e o r c o mmit o t he r c r iminal ac t s. 59 And t he g r e at e r t he l apse o f t ime be t w e e n c o mmissio n o f an o ffe nse and t he c o nv ic t io n o f t he o ffe nd e r , t he l e ss t he d e t e r r e nt v al ue o f his c o nv ic t io n. . . . [Fur t he r mo r e , w he n] t he fair ad minist r at io n o f c r iminal just ic e is impe r il e d [by d e l ibe r at e g o v e r nme nt al ac t io n,] [t ]he Spe e d y Tr ial Cl ause t he n se r v e s t he publ ic int e r e st by pe nal izing o ffic ial abuse o f t he c r iminal pr o c e ss and d isc o ur ag ing o ffic ial l aw l e ssne ss. Se e , e .g .. United States v. Provoo, 17 F.R.D. 183 (D.C.Md .), affd pe r c ur iam, 350 U.S. 857, 76 S.Ct . 101, 100 L.Ed . 761 (1955). Thus, t he g uar ant e e pr o t e c t s o ur c o mmo n int e r e st t hat g o v e r nme nt pr o se c ut e , no t pe r se c ut e , t ho se w ho m it ac c use s o f c r ime . Dickey, 398 U.S. at 42-43 (Br e nnan, J. c o nc ur r ing ). We sho ul d al w ays asse ss t he fac t s o f a c ase ag ainst t his hist o r ic al bac kd r o p and w e ig h t he m o n t he sc al e s o f t he Barker bal anc ing t e st . The v e ne r abl e hist o r y o f t he spe e d y t r ial r ig ht sho ul d mo v e us t o a r e ne w e d fo c us upo n t he “l ibe r t y int e r e st ” pr o t e c t e d by t he spe e d y t r ial c l ause . “Whe t he r d e l ay in c o mpl e t ing a pr o se c ut io n . . . amo unt s t o an unc o nst it ut io nal d e pr iv at io n o f r ig ht s d e pe nd s upo n t he c ir c umst anc e s.” Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354, 361 (1957) (c it ing Beavers v. Haubert, 198 U.S. 77, 87 (1905)). B. The Barker Factors 1 be l ie v e t he Barker fac t o r s ar e pr o pe r l y anal yze d as fo l l o w s. 1. Length of Delay At t he o ut se t o f o ur anal ysis, w e must l o o k at t he l e ng t h o f t he d e l ay be t w e e n ar r e st and t r ial . As t he Majo r it y and t he Co mmo nw e al t h c o nc e d e , t he fift y-six-mo nt h pe r io d be t w e e n He nd e r so n’s ar r e st and his t r ial far e xc e e d s t he o ne -ye ar t hr e sho l d t hat e st abl ishe s “pr e sumpt iv e pr e jud ic e ” and t r ig g e r s t he Barker anal ysis. 60 2. Reasons for Delay Barker ne xt d ir e c t s o ur at t e nt io n t o t he r e aso ns fo r t he e xt r ao r d inar y d e l ay be t w e e n He nd e r so n’s ar r e st and t r ial . We ar e r e quir e d t o w e ig h t he d iffe r e nt r e aso ns pr o v id e d by t he pr o se c ut io n and t he d e fe nse , r e spe c t iv e l y. A d e l ibe r at e d e l ay t o hampe r t he d e fe nse w e ig hs he av il y ag ainst t he g o v e r nme nt . 407 U.S. at 531. In c o nt r ast , d e l ay c ause d by t he d e fe nse w e ig hs ag ainst He nd e r so n. Dunaway v. Commonwealth, 60 S.W.3d 563, 571 (Ky. 2001) (c it ing Barker, 407 U.S. at 529). The c har g e s ag ainst He nd e r so n w e r e no t c o mpl e x; t he y ar ise fr o m a simpl e and st r aig ht fo r w ar d fac t ual sit uat io n w it ho ut e xt r ao r d inar y c o mpl ic at io ns. De spit e t he Majo r it y’s c o nt r ar y d e sc r ipt io n, t he pr e -t r ial mo t io ns mad e by t he par t ie s w e r e no t unusual l y c o mpl ic at e d t o any d e g r e e t hat w o ul d t ake t he c ase be yo nd t he r o ut ine par ame t e r s o f t he c o ur t ’s o w n ar r aig nme nt o r d e r aspir ing t o a t r ial w it h 365 d ays, r at he r t han 1672 d ays. Mo r e ne ut r al and l e ss e g r e g io us r e aso ns fo r d e l ay, suc h as ne g l ig e nc e o r o v e r c r o w d e d c o ur t s, w e ig h l e ss he av il y ag ainst t he g o v e r nme nt but ar e , ne v e r t he l e ss, fac t o r s t o w e ig h be c ause t he ul t imat e r e spo nsibil it y fo r suc h c ir c umst anc e s r e st s upo n t he g o v e r nme nt r at he r t han w it h t he ac c use d . Barker, 407 U.S. at 531. “A ne g l ig e nt fail ur e by t he g o v e r nme nt t o e nsur e spe e d y t r ial is v ir t ual l y as d amag ing t o t he int e r e st s pr o t e c t e d by t he r ig ht as an int e nt io nal fail ur e ; w he n ne g l ig e nc e is t he c ause , t he o nl y int e r e st ne c e ssar il y unaffe c t e d is o ur c o mmo n c o nc e r n t o pr e v e nt d e l ibe r at e misuse o f 61 t he c r iminal pr o c e ss by publ ic o ffic ial s.” Dickey, 398 U.S. at 51-52 (Br e nnan, J. c o nc ur r ing ). 1 am pe r suad e d by my r e v ie w o f t he pr e t r ial pr o c e e d ing s t hat al l o f t he sig nific ant and subst ant ial e l e me nt s o f d e l ay in t his c ase r e sul t e d fr o m t he t r ial c o ur t ’s ac t io n and inac t io n. Typic al l y, t he Barker anal ysis inv o l v e s an assig nme nt o f r e l at iv e bl ame fo r t he d e l ay be t w e e n t he pr o se c ut io n and t he d e fe nse . But t he Sixt h Ame nd me nt c o nst r aint appl ie s t o t he g o v e r nme nt , w hic h inc l ud e s t he jud ic iar y. The t r ial c o ur t d ir e c t l y c o nt r o l s t he pr e t r ial pr o c e ss. The pr o se c ut o r shar e s w it h t he c o ur t t he c o nst it ut io nal o bl ig at io n t o e nfo r c e t he ac c use d ’s r ig ht t o be t r ie d in a t ime l y manne r . See Barker, 407 U.S. at 529 (“But the rule we announce today, which comports with constitutional principles, places the primary burden on the courts and the prosecutors to assure that cases are brought to trial”) (e mphasis ad d e d ); see also Goben, 503 S.W.3d at 906-08 (The d e fe nd ant fail e d t o sho w pr e jud ic e r e sul t ing fr o m t he t r ial c o ur t ’s mist ake w hic h c ause d a t w o -mo nt h d e l ay in his t r ial .). Of c o ur se , t he ac c use d is no t e nt it l e d t o o bst r uc t t he pr o c e ss and t he n c l aim he w as d e nie d a spe e d y t r ial . See Dunaway, 60 S.W.3d at 571. 1 find no ind ic at io n t hat He nd e r so n o bst r uc t e d o r impe d e d t he pr o c e e d ing s. He mad e r o ut ine mo t io ns, a mo t io n se e king ne w t r ial c o unse l , a mo t io n fo r e xpe r t w it ne ss fund ing , and a mo t io n fo r r e l e ase o n bail . He al so fil e d a pro se “Pe t it io n o f Pr o hibit io n” in t he Co ur t o f Appe al s se e king d ismissal o f his 62 ind ic t me nt be c ause he had be e n d e pr iv e d o f his r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial . The se ar e no t c o mpl e x mo t io ns t hat g e ne r at e e xc e ssiv e d e l ay. I r e je c t t he Co mmo nw e al t h ’s asse r t io ns t hat t he se o r d inar y mo t io ns c ause d t he d e l ay t hat ne c e ssit at e d t he c anc e l l at io n o f fiv e t r ial d at e s o v e r fo ur ye ar s. I al so r e je c t t he Co mmo nw e al t h’s c o nt e nt io n t hat r e sc he d ul ing o f t he t r ial d at e fo r a ful l ye ar , init iat e d by t he t r ial c o ur t ’s sua sponte o r d e r fo r a c o mpe t e nc y e v al uat io n, w as t he be st t hat c o ul d be d o ne “in l ig ht o f t he c o ur t ’s o t he r c ase s.” Giv e n t he publ ishe d st and ar d s o f t he Je ffe r so n Cir c uit Co ur t t o r e so l v e fe l o ny c ase s w it hin a ye ar , I w o ul d no t ind ul g e in t he fant asy t hat t he “o t he r c ase s ” bl o c king He nd e r so n’s pat hw ay t o a t r ial d at e had l ing e r e d o n t he d o c ke t l o ng e r t han his. Why sho ul d I pr e sume , as t he Majo r it y appar e nt l y d o e s, t hat t ho se “o t he r c ase s ” had g r e at e r ur g e nc y t han He nd e r so n’s? Ho w l o ng had t he d e fe nd ant ’s in t ho se c ase s l ang uishe d in jail w it ho ut t r ial ? The Co mmo nw e al t h d o e s no t bo t he r t o t e l l us, and t he Majo r it y d o e s no t kno w . By t hat anal ysis, no o ne in t he Je ffe r so n Cir c uit Co ur t c o ul d e v e r pr o v e t he d e nial o f a spe e d y t r ial be c ause t he r e ar e al w ays “o t he r c ase s ” just ifying e ac h o t he r ’s d e l ay. To pr o pe r l y v al id at e t hat c l aim and o v e r c o me t he pr e sumpt io n o f pr e jud ic e , t he g o v e r nme nt sho ul d sho w us w hat t ho se “o t he r c ase s ” ar e and w hy t ho se l it ig ant s r e quir e d mo r e imme d iat e at t e nt io n t han He nd e r so n. I se e no t hing t o sho w t hat any “o t he r c ase s ” o n t he t r ial c o ur t ’s d o c ke t d e se r v e d g r e at e r sc he d ul ing pr io r it y t han He nd e r so n’s. 63 I al so d o no t ac c e pt t he Co mmo nw e al t h ’s ar g ume nt t hat He nd e r so n’s 2016 at t e mpt t o inv o ke his spe e d y t r ial r ig ht s by w ay o f a pro se w r it pe t it io n in t he Co ur t o f Appe al s e st abl ishe s his c ul pabil it y fo r c ausing fur t he r d e l ay. Giv e n t he l e ng t h o f his pr e t r ial inc ar c e r at io n, and t he fac t t hat fiv e pr e v io us t r ial d at e s had c o me and g o ne , He nd e r so n had e v e r y r e aso n t o d o ubt his c ase w o ul d be r e so l v e d o n t he sixt h t r ial d at e . Und e r suc h c ir c umst anc e s, t o r e g ar d his w r it pe t it io n as a w aiv e r o f his spe e d y t r ial r ig ht w o ul d me an t hat an ac c use d ind iv id ual , inc ar c e r at e d w e l l -be yo nd t he pr e sumpt iv e l y pr e jud ic ial o ne -ye ar d e l ay must aw ait his e v e nt ual t r ial be fo r e he c o ul d se e k appr o pr iat e r e l ie f fo r a spe e d y t r ial v io l at io n, t hus fur t he r e xt e nd ing pr e t r ial d e l ay and ind e finit e pr e t r ial inc ar c e r at io n. I r e je c t t hat pr o po sit io n. It is no t sur pr ising t hat aft e r t hr e e ye ar s o f pr e t r ial inc ar c e r at io n and se v e r al c anc e l l e d t r ial d at e s, a r e aso nabl e pe r so n w o ul d g r o w w e ar y and fr ust r at e d sit t ing in jail w it h appar e nt l y no r e c o ur se . It is no t unr e aso nabl e t hat his fr ust r at io n w o ul d manife st it se l f in pro se mo t io ns fo r r e l ie f, fo r ne w r e pr e se nt at io n, o r fo r anyt hing t hat mig ht mo v e his c ase t o w ar d t he jur y t r ial t o w hic h he w as e nt it l e d . He nd e r so n’s mo t io ns d id no t ke e p t he t r ial c o ur t fr o m r ul ing o n his suppr e ssio n mo t io ns in a t ime l y fashio n; his mo t io ns d id no t c o mpe l t he unjust ifiabl e ye ar -l o ng d e l ay fo r an o bv io usl y unne c e ssar y and use l e ss c o mpe t e nc y e v al uat io n. Onc e be yo nd t he init ial d e l ay in t he mo nt hs imme d iat e l y fo l l o w ing t he ar r aig nme nt and t he r e sc he d ul ing o f t he fir st t r ial d at e , w e c anno t fair l y at t r ibut e t he e xc e ssiv e d e l ay t o He nd e r so n’s ac t io ns. Thr e e ye ar s and o ne 64 mo nt h o f t he d e l ay l ie s squar e l y o n t he g o v e r nme nt , l ar g e l y d ue t o t he t r ial c o ur t ’s fail ur e t o t ime l y r ul e o n mo t io ns and t he unne c e ssar y c o mpe t e nc y e v al uat io n and t he Co mmo nw e al t h ’s passiv e ac quie sc e nc e . I d o no t impl y t hat t he t r ial c o ur t int e nd e d t o impe d e t he r e so l ut io n o f t he c ase , but w he t he r it be c har ac t e r ize d as ne g l e c t , an o v e r c r o w d e d d o c ke t , o r simpl y bur e auc r at ic ind iffe r e nc e , t he t r ial jud g e c ause d subst ant ial d e l ays w hic h w e ig h ag ainst t he st at e and t ip t he bal anc e in He nd e r so n’s fav o r . Barker, 407 U.S. at 531; Dunaway, 60 S.W.3d at 570 (quo t ing Zurla v. State, 789 P.2d 588 (1990) (“We be l ie v e t hat bur e auc r at ic ind iffe r e nc e sho ul d w e ig h mo r e he av il y ag ainst t he st at e t han simpl e c ase o v e r l o ad , par t ic ul ar l y w he n t he d e fe nd ant has at t e mpt e d t o safe g uar d his r ig ht s.”)); see also Commonwealth v. Lutoff. [T]he Co mmo nw e al t h c anno t e sc ape bl ame [fo r a fo ur -ye ar d e l ay] o n t he basis t hat t he d e l ay w as o c c asio ne d by inst it ut io nal fail ur e s o r by t he ne e d t o d ispo se o f c ase s o f inc ar c e r at e d d e fe nd ant s. . . . [P]r o se c ut o r s must t ake affir mat iv e ac t io n t o br ing c ase s t o t r ial , par t ic ul ar l y w he r e , as he r e , t he ac c use d has pr e sse d fo r an e ar l y c o nfr o nt at io n w it h his ac c use r s. Aft e r g iv ing t he Co mmo nw e al t h ’s ad minist r at iv e d iffic ul t ie s t he ir fair d ue . . . w e c o nc l ud e t hat t he l e ng t hy pe r io d s o f t ime w hic h e l apse d w it ho ut d ispo sit io n o f t his c ase r e quir e t hat t he se c o nd fac t o r in t he Barker t e st be w e ig he d quit e he av il y ag ainst t he Co mmo nw e al t h. 440 N.E.2d 52, 57 (Mass. App. 1982) (int e r nal c it at io ns and quo t at io n mar ks o mit t e d ). Waiver, or Henderson’s Assertion of His Right to a Speedy Trial The t hir d fac t o r o f t he Barker anal ysis is t he e xt e nt t o w hic h t he ac c use d has asse r t e d his r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial . “Whil e t he d e fe nd ant has a r ig ht t o a 65 spe e d y t r ial r e g ar d l e ss o f w he t he r he make s a d e mand , asse r t io n o f t he r ig ht is a fac t o r t o c o nsid e r .” Dunaway, 60 S.W.Sd at 571 (c it ing Barker, 407 U.S. at 531). The fir st d at e se t fo r He nd e r so n’s t r ial w as Jul y 17, 2012. At his r e que st , t hat d at e w as c anc e l l e d . The t r ial w as r e sc he d ul e d fo r May 7, 2013, but in e ar l y 2013, t hat t r ial d at e w as c anc e l l e d . So o n aft e r w ar d s, o n Mar c h 4, 2013, aft e r 16 mo nt hs o f pr e t r ial inc ar c e r at io n, He nd e r so n fil e d his fir st d e mand fo r a spe e d y t r ial . On No v e mbe r 25, 2013, aft e r his t hir d t r ial d at e had be e n c anc e l l e d and r e sc he d ul e d fo r a d at e se v e n mo nt hs l at e r , He nd e r so n fil e d his pro se mo t io n t o d ismiss fo r a spe e d y t r ial v io l at io n. In e ar l y Oc t o be r 2014, aft e r t he c anc e l l at io n o f t he fo ur t h t r ial d at e and t he sc he d ul ing o f a fift h t r ial d at e fo r mo r e t han a ye ar int o t he fut ur e , He nd e r so n mo v e d ag ain fo r d ismissal base d upo n a spe e d y t r ial v io l at io n. One ye ar l at e r , Oc t o be r 15, 2015, so me fo ur and z o ne -hal f mo nt hs aft e r t he c anc e l l at io n o f t he fift h t r ial d at e , He nd e r so n ag ain d e mand e d his r ig ht t o be t r ie d o n t he c har g e s ag ainst him. It c anno t be d e nie d t hat He nd e r so n w as pe r sist e nt l y asse r t ing his r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial . Ne it he r t he t r ial c o ur t no r t he pr o se c ut io n c o ul d hav e any d o ubt t hat He nd e r so n w as inv o king as fo r c e ful l y as he c o ul d his r ig ht t o be t r ie d pr o mpt l y. Prejudice to Henderson The final fac t o r o f Barker's fo ur -par t anal ysis r e quir e s o ur c o nsid e r at io n o f t he w ay He nd e r so n w as pr e jud ic e d be c ause o f his e xc e ssiv e l y l o ng pr e t r ial 66 pr o c e ss. Bar ke r t e ac he s t hat “[p]r e jud ic e . . . sho ul d be asse sse d in t he l ig ht o f t he int e r e st s o f d e fe nd ant s w hic h t he spe e d y t r ial r ig ht w as d e sig ne d t o pr o t e c t .” 407 U.S. at 532. The Barker Co ur t id e nt ifie d t hr e e d ist inc t int e r e st s t hat c an be pr e jud ic e d by an und ul y e xt e nd e d pr e t r ial pe r io d : 1) t he int e r e st in pr e v e nt ing “o ppr e ssiv e pr e t r ial inc ar c e r at io n;” 2) t he int e r e st in minimizing “anxie t y and c o nc e r n o f t he ac c use d ;” and 3) t he int e r e st in minimizing “t he po ssibil it y t hat t he d e fe nse w il l be impair e d .” Id. Of t he se t hr e e int e r e st s, Bar ke r o bse r v e d t hat “t he mo st se r io us is t he l ast , be c ause t he inabil it y o f a d e fe nd ant ad e quat e l y t o pr e par e his c ase ske w s t he fair ne ss o f t he e nt ir e syst e m.” Id. He nd e r so n asse r t s al l t hr e e fo r ms o f pr e jud ic e id e nt ifie d in Barker, but his r e l ianc e upo n t he fir st t w o fo r ms ar e mo st c o mpe l l ing : t he d e pr iv at io n o f his l ibe r t y fo r fo ur and a hal f ye ar s and t he suffe r ing e nd ur e d by t he st r e ss and anxie t y o f o v e r fo ur ye ar s in a c o unt y jail aw ait ing t r ial . His c l aim o f pr e jud ic e in t he impair me nt o f his d e fe nse is unc o nv inc ing , and so w e l o o k fir st t o d e t e r mine t he e ffe c t o f t hat w e akne ss upo n his c l aim fo r r e l ie f. Barker' s r e fe r e nc e t o t he int e r e st in pr e v e nt ing impair me nt o f t he t r ial d e fe nse as t he “mo st se r io us ” int e r e st affe c t e d by pr e t r ial d e l ay has l e d so me c o ur t s, inc l ud ing o ur o w n, t o e mphasize t hat po int t o t he d e t r ime nt o f o t he r int e r e st s in t he pr e jud ic e pr o ng , and ind e e d , t o t he d e t r ime nt o f t he o t he r t hr e e fac t o r s o f t he Barker bal anc ing t e st . Impair me nt o f t he t r ial d e fe nse is, aft e r al l , o nl y o ne c o nsid e r at io n r e l e v ant t o o nl y o ne par t o f a fo ur -par t bal anc ing t e st . Ke nt uc ky’s c o nst it ut io nal jur ispr ud e nc e has c o nsist e nt l y ac c e pt e d 67 Barkefr' pr e mise t hat ac t ual impair me nt o f t he ac c use d ’s d e fe nse is t he mo st se r io us manife st at io n o f pr e jud ic e , but w e al so ac kno w l e d g e t hat it is no t t he o nl y int e r e st ad v e r se l y affe c t e d by unr e aso nabl e pr e t r ial d e l ay. In Moore v. Arizona, 414 U.S. 25, 26 (1973), t he Supr e me Co ur t r e je c t e d as “fundamental errof’ t he Ar izo na Supr e me Co ur t ’s r ul ing t hat a sho w ing o f ac t ual pr e jud ic e t o t he t r ial d e fe nse w as e sse nt ial t o t he e st abl ishme nt o f a fe d e r al spe e d y t r ial v io l at io n. Quo t ing Barker, 407 U.S. at 533, t he Moore Co ur t r e it e r at e d ; Barker v. Wingo e xpr e ssl y r e je c t e d t he no t io n t hat an affir mat iv e d e mo nst r at io n o f pr e jud ic e w as ne c e ssar y t o pr o v e a d e nial o f t he c o nst it ut io nal r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial : We regard none of the four factors identified above (length of delay, reason for delay, defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant) as either a necessary or sufficient condition to the finding of a deprivation of the right of speedy trial. Rat he r , t he y ar e r e l at e d fac t o r s and must be c o nsid e r e d t o g e t he r w it h suc h o t he r c ir c umst anc e s as may be r e l e v ant . In sum, t he se fac t o r s hav e no t al ismanic qual it ie s; c o ur t s must st il l e ng ag e in a d iffic ul t and se nsit iv e bal anc ing pr o c e ss. But, because we are dealing with a fundamental right of the accused, this process must be carried out with full recognition that the accused’s interest in a speedy trial is specifically affirmed in the Constitution. Moore, 414 U.S. at 26 (e mphasis ad d e d ). By w ay o f e mphasizing t hat ac t ual impair me nt o f t he t r ial d e fe nse is no t an e sse nt ial e l e me nt o f t he pr e jud ic e pr o ng o f t he Barker t e st , w it h t he fo l l o w ing que st io n, Moore hig hl ig ht e d t he Co ur t ’s c o nsid e r at io n o f t he ac c use d ’s int e r e st in his o w n l ibe r t y: “In t he fac e o f pe t it io ne r ’s r e pe at e d d e mand s, d id 68 t he St at e d isc har g e it s ‘c o nst it ut io nal d ut y t o make a d il ig e nt , g o o d -fait h e ffo r t t o br ing him (t o t r ial )?” Id. (quo t ing Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374, 383 (1969)). In United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1, 8 (1982), t he Supr e me Co ur t ag ain r e mind e d us t hat t he Sixt h Ame nd me nt Spe e d y Tr ial r ig ht is not “pr imar il y int e nd e d t o pr e v e nt pr e jud ic e t o t he d e fe nse c ause d by passag e o f t ime .” As t he Co ur t e xpl aine d , t he Sixt h Ame nd me nt is no t ne e d e d fo r t hat func t io n be c ause “that interest is protected primarily by the Due Process Clause and by statutes of limitations.” Id. “The spe e d y t r ial g uar ant e e is d e sig ne d t o minimize t he po ssibil it y o f l e ng t hy inc ar c e r at io n pr io r t o t r ial , t o r e d uc e t he l e sse r , but ne v e r t he l e ss subst ant ial , impair me nt o f l ibe r t y impo se d o n an ac c use d w hil e r e l e ase d o n bail , and t o sho r t e n t he d isr upt io n o f l ife c ause d by ar r e st and t he pr e se nc e o f unr e so l v e d c r iminal c har g e s.” Id. Thus, if t he “pr e jud ic e by impair me nt o f t he ac c use d ’s d e fe nse at t r ial ” be c o me s t he sing l e fac t o r t e st fo r a Spe e d y Tr ial Cl ause v io l at io n t he n t he Sixt h Ame nd me nt Guar ant e e be c o me s a me r e r e d und anc y. As no t e d abo v e , t he hist o r y o f t hat anc ie nt r ig ht e st abl ishe s t hat it is no t a me r e pr o c e d ur al ar t ifac t , a yar d st ic k by w hic h w e mig ht g aug e t he e ffic ie nc y o f pr e t r ial pr o c e d ur e . Like it s Co nst it ut io nal par t ne r , t he Rig ht t o a Publ ic Tr ial , t he Rig ht t o a Spe e d y Tr ial is a subst ant iv e r ig ht se r v ing bo t h t he ac c use d and t he c o mmunit y. It is no t a d e v ic e fo r d e t e r mining r e t r o spe c t iv e l y w he t he r t he ac c use d had a fair t r ial ; t he Due Pr o c e ss Cl ause abl y se r v e s t hat func t io n. “[T]he Spe e d y Tr ial Cl ause ’s c o r e c o nc e r n is impair me nt o f l ibe r t y.” United States V. Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. 302, 312 (1986). 69 This Co ur t has o v e r t he ye ar s pe r sist e nt l y r e fuse d t o r e c o g nize t he impair me nt o f o ne ’s l ibe r t y as t he c o r e c o nc e r n o f t he spe e d y t r ial r ig ht , and 1 submit r e spe c t ful l y t hat w e o nc e ag ain und e r v al ue t hat pr inc ipl e in o ur d ispo sit io n o f t his c ase . Pe r haps misc o nst r uing Barkefs r e fe r e nc e t o pr e v e nt ing impair me nt o f an ac c use d ’s d e fe nse as “the most serious concern” Ke nt uc ky c o ur t s hav e e l e v at e d t hat int e r e st t o an e sse nt ial r e quir e me nt .19 Ne v e r t he l e ss, t he Unit e d St at e s Supr e me Co ur t has c o nsist e nt l y po int e d o ut t hat ac t ual pr e jud ic e by impair me nt o f t he d e fe nse is not a pr e r e quisit e fo r a spe e d y t r ial v io l at io n. Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) pr o v id e s an insig ht ful e xampl e . Do g g e t t w as ind ic t e d o n fe d e r al d r ug c har g e s, but he l e ft t he c o unt r y so o n aft e r w ar d s, appar e nt l y unaw ar e o f his ind ic t me nt . A po r t io n o f his t ime abr o ad w as spe nt in a fo r e ig n pr iso n, and al t ho ug h t he g o v e r nme nt w as aw ar e o f his l o c at io n, it mad e no e ffo r t t o c o mme nc e t he pr o se c ut io n. Do g g e t t l at e r r e t ur ne d t o t his c o unt r y and se t t l e d int o a no r mal l ife fo r six ye ar s, st il l unaw ar e o f his st at us as an ind ic t e d pe r so n. Eig ht and a hal f ye ar s aft e r his ind ic t me nt he w as ar r e st e d and t r ie d . Id. at 648-53. The Supr e me Co ur t appl ie d t he Barker anal ysis and c o nc l ud e d t hat d e spit e Do g g e t t ’s inabil it y t o sho w ac t ual pr e jud ic e t o his d e fe nse , and e v e n 19 Just ic e Tho mas ’ d isse nt in Doggett, 505 U.S. 647, 660-65 (1992), e mphasize s t hat t he Spe e d y Tr ial Cl ause ’s c o nc e r n is no t pr e jud ic e t o t he d e fe nse , w hic h fal l s at l e ast und e r t he Due Pr o c e ss Cl ause , but d e l ay-r e l at e d pr e jud ic e t o a d e fe nd ant ’s l ibe r t y. He v ie w s Barkefs sug g e st io n t hat pr e v e nt ing pr e jud ic e t o t he d e fe nse is a fund ame nt al and ind e pe nd e nt o bje c t iv e o f t he Cl ause as d ic t um w hic h c anno t be d e e me d t o hav e sur v iv e d t he subse que nt d e c isio ns in MacDonald and Loud Hawk. 70 t ho ug h he w as no t d e pr iv e d o f his l ibe r t y d ur ing t he e xt e nsiv e pr e t r ial pe r io d , his r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial w as v io l at e d by g o v e r nme nt ne g l ig e nc e . Fir st , t he e xt r ao r d inar y e ig ht -and -a-hal f-ye ar l ag be t w e e n his ind ic t me nt and ar r e st suffic e d t o e st abl ish pr e sumpt iv e pr e jud ic e t r ig g e r ing t he spe e d y t r ial e nquir y. Se c o nd , t he d e l ay w as t he faul t o f t he g o v e r nme nt , no t Do g g e t t . Thir d , as t he g o v e r nme nt c o nc e d e d , Do g g e t t asse r t e d , in d ue c o ur se , his r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial as so o n as he c o ul d . Final l y, t he ne g l ig e nt d e l ay be t w e e n Do g g e t t ’s ind ic t me nt and ar r e st presumptively prejudiced his abil it y t o pr e par e an ad e quat e d e fe nse , e v e n if pr o o f o f ac t ual pr e jud ic e w as w ant ing . Id. at 651-58. The o nl y issue o f subst anc e be fo r e t he Co ur t w as w he t he r Do g g e t t ’s inabil it y t o sho w ac t ual pr e jud ic e d o o me d his c l aim o f a spe e d y t r ial v io l at io n. Id. at 651-54. In find ing a v io l at io n o f t he Spe e d y Tr ial Cl ause , t he Co ur t he l d t hat “c o nsid e r at io n o f pr e jud ic e is no t l imit e d t o t he spe c ific al l y d e mo nst r abl e , and as [t he g o v e r nme nt ] c o nc e d e s . . . affir mat iv e pr o o f o f par t ic ul ar ize d pr e jud ic e is no t e sse nt ial t o e v e r y spe e d t r ial c l aim.” Id. at 655 (c it at io ns o mit t e d ). Ev e n t he d isse nt in Doggett (Just ic e Tho mas, jo ine d by Just ic e Sc al ia and Chie f Just ic e Re hnquist ) ac kno w l e d g e d t hat ac t ual pr e jud ic e t o o ne ’s d e fe nse is no t a pr e r e quisit e fo r a spe e d y t r ial v io l at io n. “We hav e l o ng id e nt ifie d t he ‘majo r e v il s ’ ag ainst w hic h t he Spe e d y Tr ial Cl ause is d ir e c t e d as ‘und ue and o ppr e ssiv e inc ar c e r at io n’ and t he ‘anxie t y and c o nc e r n ac c o mpanying publ ic ac c usat io n.’ The Co ur t d o e s no t , and c anno t , se r io usl y d isput e t hat t ho se t w o c o nc e r ns l ie at t he he ar t o f t he Cl ause . . . .” 505 U.S. 71 at 659 (Tho mas, J. d isse nt ing ) (quo t ing United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 320 (1971)). Just ic e Tho mas fur t he r po int e d o ut t hat t he impair me nt o f l ibe r t y, r at he r t han t he impair me nt o f o ne ’s t r ial d e fe nse , is t he e sse nt ial int e r e st pr o t e c t e d by t he Spe e d y Tr ial Cl ause : [P]r e jud ic e t o t he d e fe nse is no t t he so r t o f impair me nt o f l ibe r t y ag ainst w hic h t he [Spe e d y Tr ial ] Cl ause is d ir e c t e d . Passag e o f t ime , w he t he r be fo r e o r aft e r ar r e st , may impair me mo r ie s, c ause e v id e nc e t o be l o st , d e pr iv e t he d e fe nd ant o f w it ne sse s, and o t he r w ise int e r fe r e w it h his abil it y t o d e fe nd himse l f. But this possibility of prejudice at trial is not itself sufficient reason to wrench the Sixth Amendment from its proper context. Ev e n t ho ug h a d e fe nd ant may be pr e jud ic e d by a pr e t r ial d e l ay, and e v e n t ho ug h t he g o v e r nme nt may be unabl e t o pr o v id e a v al id just ific at io n fo r t hat d e l ay, t he Cl ause d o e s no t c o me int o pl ay unl e ss t he d e l ay impair s t he d e fe nd ant ’s l ibe r t y. Ino r d inat e d e l ay . . . may impair a d e fe nd ant ’s abil it y t o pr e se nt an e ffe c t iv e d e fe nse . But t he majo r e v il s pr o t e c t e d ag ainst by t he spe e d y t r ial g uar ant e e e xist quite apart fr o m ac t ual o r po ssibl e pr e jud ic e t o an ac c use d ’s d e fe nse . 505 U.S. at 661 (Tho mas, J. d isse nt ing ) (int e r nal quo t at io n mar ks and int e r nal c it at io ns o mit t e d ) (e mphasis in o r ig inal ). As Just ic e Tho mas no t e d , t he fac t t hat t he spe e d y t r ial r ig ht is me asur e d by t he int e r v al be t w e e n t he ind ic t me nt and t he t r ial , r at he r t han t he t ime be t w e e n t he c r ime and t r ial , “c o nfir ms t hat pr e v e nt ing pr e jud ic e t o t he d e fe nse is no t o ne o f [t he Spe e d y Tr ial Cl ause ’s] ind e pe nd e nt and fund ame nt al o bje c t iv e s.” Id. at 662-63. He r e aso ne d , “If t he Cl ause w e r e ind e e d aime d at safe g uar d ing ag ainst pr e jud ic e t o t he d e fe nse , t he n it w o ul d pr e sumabl y l imit all pr o se c ut io ns t hat o c c ur l o ng aft e r t he c r iminal e v e nt s at issue .” Id. 72 Just ic e So ut e r ’s majo r it y o pinio n in Doggett e xpl ic it l y r e c o g nize d “t hat impair me nt o f o ne ’s d e fe nse is t he mo st d iffic ul t fo r m o f spe e d y t r ial pr e jud ic e t o pr o v e be c ause t ime ’s e r o sio n o f e xc ul pat o r y e v id e nc e and t e st imo ny c an r ar e l y be sho w n.” Id. at 655 (c it at io n and int e r nal quo t at io n mar ks o mit t e d ). [E]xc e ssiv e d e l ay pr e sumpt iv e l y c o mpr o mise s t he r e l iabil it y o f a t r ial in w ays t hat ne it he r par t y c an pr o v e o r , fo r t hat mat t e r , id e nt ify. Whil e suc h pr e sumpt iv e pr e jud ic e c anno t al o ne c ar r y a Sixt h Ame nd me nt c l aim w it ho ut r e g ar d t o t he o t he r Barker c r it e r ia, it is par t o f t he mix o f r e l e v ant fac t s, and it s impo r t anc e inc r e ase s w it h t he l e ng t h o f d e l ay. Id. at 655-56 (int e r nal c it at io n o mit t e d ). “[PJr o l o ng e d and unjust ifiabl e d e l ays in pr o se c ut io n” c anno t be c o nd o ne d as it “w o ul d bo t h pe nal ize many d e fe nd ant s fo r t he st at e ’s faul t and simpl y e nc o ur ag e t he g o v e r nme nt t o g ambl e w it h t he int e r e st s o f c r iminal suspe c t s assig ne d a l o w pr o se c ut o r ial pr io r it y.” Id. at 657. To d at e , t his Co ur t has no t fo und a c ase in w hic h t he pr e sumpt iv e pr e jud ic e o f l e ng t hy pr e t r ial d e t e nt io n has t ippe d t he Barker bal anc e t o w ar d t he find ing o f a spe e d y t r ial v io l at io n. Fo r t he mo st par t , abse nt a sho w ing o f ac t ual pr e jud ic e t o t he d e fe nse , w e hav e no t be e n c o nv inc e d t hat a spe e d y t r ial v io l at io n o c c ur r e d .20 Our e xc l usiv e d e pe nd e nc e upo n t hat kind o f pr e jud ic e as 20 See Brown v. Commonwealth, 934 S.W.2d 242, 249 (Ky. 1996) (“Ke nt uc ky c ase l aw ind ic at e s t hat ‘[t ]he po ssibil it y o f pr e jud ic e al o ne is no t suffic ie nt t o suppo r t t he po sit io n t hat spe e d y t r ial r ig ht s hav e be e n v io l at e d .”’); Gabow v. Commonwealth, 34 S.W.3d 63, 70 (Ky. 2000) (o v e r r ul e d o n o t he r g r o und s by Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 60-61 (2004)) (“Final l y, al t ho ug h [t he ac c use d ] may hav e be e n pr e jud ic e d by t he me r e fac t t hat he w as inc ar c e r at e d d ur ing t he d e l ay ... he has no t id e nt ifie d any pr e jud ic e w it h r e spe c t t o his abil it y t o pr e se nt his d e fe nse at t r ial .”); St. Clair v. Commonwealth, 140 S.W.3d 510, 529-30 (Ky. 2004) (“[I]t is c l e ar t hat Appe l l ant has fail e d t o d e mo nst r at e pr e jud ic e fr o m t his po st -e xt r ad it io n d e l ay. . . . Appe l l ant ’s 73 t he st and ar d fo r spe e d y t r ial issue s se e ms t o hav e o c c ur r e d w it ho ut c l o se l y e xamining it s appl ic abil it y und e r Sixt h Ame nd me nt anal ysis.21 As Doggett, Moore, and o t he r c ase s at t e st , t hat is not t he st and ar d ad o pt e d fo r Sixt h Ame nd me nt Co nst it ut io nal anal ysis by t he Unit e d St at e s Supr e me Co ur t . Doggett’s d ispo sit io n o f t he spe e d y t r ial c l aim w as he av il y infl ue nc e d by g o v e r nme nt al ne g l e c t r e sul t ing in far be yo nd t he o ne -ye ar t r ial d e l ay l imit d e e me d t o be “pr e sumpt iv e l y pr e jud ic ial .” The Doggett c o ur t c o nc l ud e d t hat , spe c ific c o mpl aint s . . . fail t o d e mo nst r at e any id e nt ifiabl e pr e jud ic e fr o m t he ad d it io nal d e l ay t hat o c c ur r e d after he w as t r anspo r t e d t o Ke nt uc ky.); Bratcher v. Commonwealth, 151 S.W.Sd 332, 344-45 (Ky. 2004) (“As w e no t e d abo v e , a l o ng d e l ay, w hil e c r e at ing ‘pr e sumpt iv e pr e jud ic e ’ suffic ie nt t o c o nt inue t he Bar ke r anal ysis, d o e s no t ne c e ssar il y c r e at e r e al pr e jud ic e t o a d e fe nd ant .”); Parker v. Commonwealth, 241 S.W.3d 805, 812 (Ky. 2007) (“Appe l l ant is unabl e t o d e mo nst r at e any pr e jud ic e in his abil it y t o pr o c e e d in t his c ase in pr e se nt ing his v e r sio n o f e v e nt s, e v e n t ho ug h he d id fr e que nt l y asse r t his r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial .”); Dickerson v. Commonwealth, 278 S.W.3d 145, 151-52 (Ky. 2009) (“No t ic e abl y l ac king fr o m Dic ke r so n’s br ie f is any c o nc r e t e al l e g at io n o f pr e jud ic e . Our pr e c e d e nt c l e ar l y ho l d s t hat spe c ul at iv e and g e ne r ic c l aims ar e insuffic ie nt t o suppo r t a c l aim o f pr e jud ic e .”); Miller v. Commonwealth, 283 S.W.3d 690, 702 (Ky. 2009) (“Appe l l ant c l aims he w as pr e jud ic e d by t he d e l ay be c ause he c o ul d no t c al l al l o f his w it ne sse s. Ye t , he d o e s no t g iv e any d e t ail s as t o ho w t he d e l ay c ause d his w it ne ss t o be unav ail abl e . Our pr e c e d e nt c l e ar l y ho l d s t hat spe c ul at iv e and g e ne r ic c l aims ar e insuffic ie nt t o suppo r t a c l aim o f pr e jud ic e .”); Smith V. Commonwealth, 361 S.W.3d 908, 918 (Ky. 2012) (“As w e r e c e nt l y st at e d in Miller v. Commonwealth, ‘spe c ul at iv e and g e ne r ic c l aims ar e insuffic ie nt t o suppo r t a c l aim o f pr e jud ic e .’. . . Ac c o r d ing l y, Appe l l ant must d e mo nst r at e actual pr e jud ic e .”); Goncalves v. Commonwealth, 404 S.W.3d 180, 202-03 (Ky. 2013) (“Whil e al o ng d e l ay c r e at e s ‘pr e sumpt iv e pr e jud ic e ’ suffic ie nt t o c o mpe l a ful l Bar ke r inquir y, it d o e s no t ne c e ssar il y pr o v e t hat t he d e fe nd ant suffe r e d ac t ual pr e jud ic e .”); Stacy u. Commonwealth, 396 S.W.3d 787, 799 (Ky. 2013) (“Appe l l ant st at e s t hat he d o e s no t hav e t o sho w pr e jud ic e t o his d e fe nse as a r e sul t o f t he d e l ay. We d isag r e e .”); Goben v. Commonwealth, 503 S.W.3d 890, 908 (Ky. 2016) (“Go be n’s fail ur e t o ind ic at e ho w any ad d it io nal d e l ay ad d e d muc h t o his anxie t y o r impair e d his d e fe nse t o t he Aug ust 2009 c har g e s [al o ng w it h o t he r fac t o r s] w e ig h he av il y . . . ag ainst Go be n’s c l aim.”). 21 Doggett has pr imar il y be e n c it e d in o ur c ase s fo r it s e xpl anat io n t hat “‘pr e sumpt iv e pr e jud ic e ’ d o e s no t ne c e ssar il y ind ic at e a st at ist ic al pr o babil it y o f pr e jud ic e ; it simpl y mar ks t he po int at w hic h c o ur t s d e e m t he d e l ay unr e aso nabl e e no ug h t o t r ig g e r t he Bar ke r e nquir y.” See, e.g., Bratcher, 151 S.W.3d at 334; Parker, 241 S.W.3d at 812. 74 “w he n t he pr e sumpt io n o f pr e jud ic e , al be it unspe c ifie d , is ne it he r e xt e nuat e d , as by t he d e fe nd ant ’s ac quie sc e nc e , no r pe r suasiv e l y r e but t e d [by t he pr o se c ut io n], t he d e fe nd ant is e nt it l e d t o r e l ie f.” 505 U.S. at 658 (int e r nal c it at io n and fo o t no t e s o mit t e d ). He nd e r so n’s c l aim o f pr e jud ic e sho ul d be e xamine d in l ig ht o f t he fo r e g o ing aut ho r it ie s. He asse r t s t hat al l t hr e e int e r e st s id e nt ifie d in Barker w e r e pr e jud ic e d by his l e ng t hy inc ar c e r at io n. I ag r e e t hat his c l aim t hat his d e fe nse w as impair e d by t he unne c e ssar y d e l ay d e se r v e s l it t l e w e ig ht . He id e nt ifie s no spe c ific inst anc e o f pr e jud ic e in t he pr e par at io n o f his t r ial d e fe nse . His g e ne r ic c l aims o f an impair e d d e fe nse ar e insuffic ie nt t o suppo r t a sho w ing o f pr e jud ic e . But impair me nt o f t he d e fe nse is no t t he o nl y fo r m o f pr e jud ic e , and ind e e d , it is no t e v e n t he mo st impo r t ant fo r m o f pr e jud ic e w r o ug ht by e xc e ssiv e pr e t r ial d e l ay. He nd e r so n’s mo st c o mpe l l ing c l aim o f pr e jud ic e is t o his int e r e st in av o id ing o ppr e ssiv e pr e t r ial d e pr iv at io n o f l ibe r t y, w hic h is t he fo r m o f pr e jud ic e t hat t he spe e d y t r ial r ig ht w as hist o r ic al l y int e nd e d t o pr e v e nt . As t he Supr e me Co ur t c ase s c it e d abo v e ampl y at t e st , d e pr iv at io n o f l ibe r t y is t he c o r e v al ue t he Spe e d y Tr ial Cl ause w as d e sig ne d t o pr o t e c t . Pr e jud ic e impo se d upo n l ibe r t y by e xc e ssiv e l y l e ng t hy pr e t r ial inc ar c e r at io n is t ang ibl e . As Just ic e Whit e ’s c o nc ur r ing o pinio n in Barker, jo ine d by Just ic e Br e nnan, e mphasize d , t he r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial e xist s, no t t o pr e v e nt injur y t o t he ac c use d ’s d e fe nse , but t o pr o t e c t ag ainst t he l e ng t hy int e r fe r e nc e w it h his l ibe r t y w hil e he is pr e sume d inno c e nt : 75 [I]t is appr o pr iat e t o e mphasize t hat o ne o f t he majo r pur po se s o f t he [spe e d y t r ial ] pr o v isio n is t o g uar d ag ainst ino r d inat e d e l ay be t w e e n publ ic c har g e and t r ial , w hic h, w ho l l y asid e fr o m po ssibl e pr e jud ic e t o a d e fe nse o n t he me r it s, may ‘se r io usl y int e r fe r e w it h t he d e fe nd ant ’s l ibe r t y, w he t he r he is fr e e o n bail o r no t , and t hat may d isr upt his e mpl o yme nt , d r ain his financ ial r e so ur c e s, c ur t ail his asso c iat io ns, subje c t him t o publ ic o bl o quy, and c r e at e anxie t y in him, his famil y and his fr ie nd s,’ United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 320, 92 S.Ct . 455, 463, 30 L.Ed .2d 468 (1971). The se fac t o r s ar e mo r e se r io us fo r so me t han fo r o t he r s, but t he y ar e ine v it abl y pr e se nt in e v e r y c ase t o so me e xt e nt , fo r e v e r y d e fe nd ant w il l e it he r be inc ar c e r at e d pe nd ing t r ial o r o n bail subje c t t o subst ant ial r e st r ic t io ns o n his l ibe r t y. It is al so t r ue t hat many d e fe nd ant s w il l be l ie v e t hat t ime is o n t he ir sid e and w il l pr e fe r t o suffe r w hat e v e r d isad v ant ag e s d e l ay may e nt ail . [F]o r t ho se w ho d e sir e an e ar l y t r ial , t he se pe r so nal fac t o r s sho ul d pr e v ail if t he o nl y c o unt e r v ail ing c o nsid e r at io ns o ffe r e d by t he St at e ar e t ho se c o nne c t e d w it h c r o w d e d d o c ke t s and pr o se c ut o r ial c ase l o ad s. A d e fe nd ant d e sir ing a spe e d y t r ial , t he r e fo r e , sho ul d hav e it w it hin so me r e aso nabl e t ime ; and o nl y spe c ial c ir c umst anc e s pr e se nt ing a mo r e pr e ssing publ ic ne e d w it h r e spe c t t o t he c ase it se l f sho ul d suffic e t o just ify d e l ay. Onl y if suc h spe c ial c o nsid e r at io ns ar e in t he c ase and if t he y o ut w e ig h t he ine v it abl e pe r so nal pr e jud ic e r e sul t ing fr o m d e l ay w o ul d it be ne c e ssar y t o c o nsid e r w he t he r t he r e has be e n o r w o ul d be pr e jud ic e t o t he d e fe nse at t r ial . 407 U.S. at 537-38. No “spe c ial c ir c umst anc e s ” ar o se t o ke e p He nd e r so n fr o m hav ing a t r ial w it hin a r e aso nabl e t ime . The ino r d inat e d e l ay be t w e e n his ar r e st and t r ial se r io usl y int e r fe r e d w it h his l ibe r t y. Co mme nsur at e w it h t he pur po se o f t he spe e d y t r ial r ig ht , I fir ml y be l ie v e t hat He nd e r so n w as ind e e d pr e jud ic e d by t he l e ng t hy, fo ur -and -a-hal f-ye ar pr e t r ial inc ar c e r at io n. Pr e jud ic e o f t he mo st e g r e g io us kind w as w e l l e st abl ishe d by He nd e r so n’s unjust ifie d and unr e aso nabl e d e pr iv at io n o f l ibe r t y d ur ing t he e xt e nd e d pe r io d o f pr e t r ial inc ar c e r at io n. 76 C. Weighing the Barker Factors The c o mpl e t io n o f t he Barker bal anc ing pr o c e ss r e quir e s t hat w e w e ig h t o g e t he r t he r e l at iv e sig nific anc e o f e ac h o f t he fo ur d ist inc t Barker fac t o r s; t he l e ng t h o f d e l ay; t he r e aso n fo r t he d e l ay; w aiv e r , o r t he d e fe nd ant ’s asse r t io n o f his r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial ; and pr e jud ic e t o t he d e fe nd ant . Und e r any c ir c umst anc e s, t he e xt r ao r d inar y fift y-six-mo nt h d e l ay be t w e e n ar r e st and t r ial is sig nific ant and is e v e n mo r e r e mar kabl e in l ig ht o f t he t r ial c o ur t ’s st at e d e xpe c t at io n o f g e t t ing fe l o ny c ase s t o t r ial w it hin a ye ar . The pr e sumpt io n o f pr e jud ic e is st r o ng ; t he ino r d inat e l e ng t h o f t he d e l ay w e ig hs he av il y ag ainst t he g o v e r nme nt . The r e aso n fo r t he nume r o us d e l ays t hat pr e v e nt e d t his c ase fr o m g o ing e xpe d it io usl y t o t r ial ar e v ar ie d and bl ame is d iv id e d . He nd e r so n is r e spo nsibl e fo r t he init ial d e l ay and t he r e sc he d ul ing o f t he fir st t r ial d at e , w hic h c o nsume d t he fir st ye ar aft e r his ind ic t me nt . It is w o r t h no t ing , ho w e v e r , t hat d ur ing t he e ar l y mo nt hs o f pr e t r ial inc ar c e r at io n pr e jud ic e is no t appar e nt , no r is it pr e sume d . As d e l ay be c o me s pr o t r ac t e d , t he pr e jud ic ial e ffe c t c o r r e spo nd ing l y g r o w s. Doggett, 505 U.S. at 657. The t r ial c o ul d no t g o fo r w ar d w hil e t he t r ial c o ur t po nd e r e d it s suppr e ssio n r ul ing s fo r ne ar l y t w o ye ar s. Aft e r t hat , ano t he r w ho l e ye ar o f d e l ay w as c ause d by t he t r ial c o ur t ’s unjust ifiabl e d e c isio n t o c o mpe l He nd e r so n t o submit t o a c o mpe t e nc y e v al uat io n. On bal anc e , t he mo st sig nific ant r e aso ns fo r t he e xt e nd e d d e l ay r e st s w it h t he t r ial c o ur t and c anno t fair l y be bl ame d upo n He nd e r so n. 77 He nd e r so n asse r t e d his r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial by making his fir st d e mand fo r a spe e d y t r ial in Mar e h 2013, mo r e t han t hr e e ye ar s be fo r e he w as e v e nt ual l y t r ie d . He fil e d subse que nt mo t io ns al e r t ing t he e o ur t t o his d e mand fo r a spe e d y t r ial and se e king d ismissal fo r t he v io l at io n o f his spe e d y t r ial r ig ht . We hav e abso l ut e l y no basis fo r c o ne l ud ing t hat He nd e r so n w aiv e d his r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial . Final l y, years o f pr e t r ial inc ar e e r at io n impo se d a subst ant ial and unjust ifiabl e pr e jud ie e upo n He nd e r so n’s int e r e st in l ibe r t y. That pr e jud ic e c anno t be d isc o unt e d o r ig no r e d be c ause he fail s t o subst ant iat e his c l aim o f pr e jud ic e t o his t r ial d e fe nse . We ig hing t he se fo ur fac t o r s t o g e t he r l e ad t o t he ne c e ssar y c o nc l usio n t hat He nd e r so n’s c o nst it ut io nal r ig ht s t o a spe e d y t r ial w e r e v io l at e d . Al l t he Barker fac t o r s w e ig h in his fav o r . Of c o ur se , t he ne c e ssar y r e sul t o f t hat c o nc l usio n is t hat He nd e r so n’s c ase must be d ismisse d . So me w il l al w ays find t hat r e sul t t o o d ist ast e ful t o st o mac h, but t he y w o ul d hav e t o c o nc e d e t he n t hat , in t he ir v ie w , t he r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial be l o ng s o nl y t o t he w r o ng l y ac c use d . A g uil t y pe r so n c o ul d ne v e r d e mo nst r at e suffic ie nt pr e jud ic e t o w ar r ant t he v ind ic at io n o f his r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial no mat t e r ho w l o ng his pr e -t r ial inc ar c e r at io n. Whe n t he c o nst it ut io nal r ig ht t o be fr e e fr o m unr e aso nabl e se ar c he s and se izur e s is v io l at e d , and w he n t he c o nst it ut io nal r ig ht t o r e main sil e nt is v io l at e d , t he o nl y v iabl e r e me d y is t he suppr e ssio n o f t he e v id e nc e w r o ng l y o bt aine d . See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Bedway, 466 S.W.3d 468, 476 (Ky. 2015) (“The r e sul t o f a suc c e ssful mo t io n t o suppr e ss is t he e xc l usio n fr o m ad missio n at t r ial o f any 78 w r o ng ful l y ac quir e d e v id e nc e .”). The suppr e ssio n o f suc h e v id e nc e o ft e n r e sul t s in t he d ismissal o f c r iminal c har g e s. That r e me d y is by so me me asur e s har sh, but it has be e n fo und t o be t he o nl y me ans by w hic h t he se impo r t ant c o nst it ut io nal l ibe r t ie s c an be e nfo r c e d . See id. Simil ar l y, w he n t he r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial is v io l at e d , t he r e is no r e me d iat io n by t ur ning t he c al e nd ar bac k and r e st o r ing t he v io l at e d r ig ht . The o nl y e ffe c t iv e e nfo r c e me nt me c hanism t o assur e appr o pr iat e r e spe c t fo r t he c o nst it ut io nal r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial , and t o d e t e r it s v io l at io ns in o t he r c ase s, is d ismissal o f t he c ase . The g o v e r nme nt s c r e at e d and e mpo w e r e d by t he Co nst it ut io n ar e r e spo nsibl e fo r pr o t e c t ing t he r ig ht s se c ur e d by t he Co nst it ut io n. See Barker, 407 U.S. at 527. The c o nse que nc e s fo r t he g o v e r nme nt ’s v io l at io n o f t ho se r ig ht s must be bo r ne by t he g o v e r nme nt , r at he r t han t he ac c use d . The r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial is as fund ame nt al as any o f t he o t he r r ig ht s se c ur e d by t he Sixt h Ame nd me nt . Klopfer, 386 U.S at 223. Giv e n t he unr e aso nabl e d e l ay at t r ibut e d t o t he g o v e r nme nt ’s ne g l ig e nc e and t he pr e jud ic e t o He nd e r so n’s l ibe r t y int e r e st , He nd e r so n is e nt it l e d t o r e l ie f und e r t he Sixt h Ame nd me nt ’s Spe e d y Tr ial Cl ause and Se c t io n El e v e n o f t he Ke nt uc ky Co nst it ut io n. The o nl y av ail abl e r e l ie f is t he d ismissal o f t he c har g e s. As st at e d in Barker. The amo r pho us qual it y o f t he r ig ht al so l e ad s t o t he unsat isfac t o r il y se v e r e r e me d y o f d ismissal o f t he ind ic t me nt w he n t he r ig ht has be e n d e pr iv e d . This is ind e e d a se r io us c o nse que nc e be c ause it me ans t hat a d e fe nd ant w ho may be g uil t y o f a se r io us c r ime w il l g o fr e e , w it ho ut hav ing be e n t r ie d . Suc h a r e me d y is mo r e se r io us t han an e xc l usio nar y r ul e o r a r e v e r sal fo r a ne w t r ial , but it is t he o nl y po ssibl e r e me d y. 79 407 U.S. at 522. Fo r t he r e aso ns st at e d abo v e , I be l ie v e t hat He nd e r so n’s r ig ht t o a spe e d y t r ial w as v io l at e d . I w o ul d r e v e r se his c o nv ic t io n and r e mand t his c ase t o t he Je ffe r so n Cir c uit Co ur t fo r a pr o mpt o r d e r o f d ismissal . Co nse que nt l y, I d isse nt . Mint o n, C.J., and Cunning ham, J., jo in. COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Shanno n Re ne e Dupr e e De par t me nt o f Publ ic Ad v o c ac y COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: And y Be she ar At t o r ne y Ge ne r al o f Ke nt uc ky Jo se ph A. Be c ke t t Assist ant At t o r ne y Ge ne r al 80