state money dismissed the charge and refile be identical charge under identical bad acts in the same case all all cases hand together in a single same as the original misdemeanor charge isn't that the end of the analysis can't they just say well these the term randomness to me or this is the same charge and the story but they just missed the case if the defendant is transferred to different county and then later on they really file against him and t don't think it is to i think what the supreme court is doing is they are reaching out and they are saying it doesn't make any difference whether the original charges filed by police officers complained we're not talking about community toward joint or we're not talking about other legal principles we're talking about the proposition that you cannot dismiss and refiled case and the he climb where some of the more than one courtroom and some of them were in another court room and they were always handled separately in the bombs were handled separately and all sorts of so we had an original case for mr wood else just a misdemeanor and traffic managers but the i think more importantly i think the easy answer to that is know things have to look at with me and showing is that they reject the reasoning of the dissent i mean the dissent goes through all these discussions about one case was filed by the police one case filed by the state what about all those previous case law what about mandatory joining or what about double jeopardy and the supreme court just sweeps all the way and they say working re you have a speedy trial and it is running you can do this and refile and we don't really care about all these other considerations so are so from from our perspective it's it's over right and the other thing that's curious about it maybe this helps with your question is there and then showing the defense never filed a motion to dismiss and speed trap trial about that period of time here it seems to me that we can talk about all these linguistic linguistic differences between one case and another all these factual differences and so forth and so on but really what it comes down to is a questioning of whether the supreme court meant what it said the climate in question and human question is this morning but to rule otherwise is to be contrary enhanced case and you know what one of the big day comes they never enhance it and they never explain what might have enhanced it it doesn't appear that there's anything that could be used to i would point to the comments that i made earlier there in the supreme court majority makes a sweeping decision it rejects the reasoning of the dissent it's not as if there wasn't someone else out there saying women what about all this prior  insurance and there there's got to be a reason that they both cited it in might not their reason be that there has to be some showing that there was an effort to employable to a different area of criminal law like mandatory jointer or like double jeopardy and they specifically said they were nineteen with their we're not going to allow that type of language to apply to speedy trial issue a speedy trial is just you get a certain amount of time to do something and we're not going to allow you to make certain that actual decisions or i determinations which here the court did make that it saw no pattern of you know by the state to avoid death speedy trial right  don't think that there is the good faith that your ears were worth referring to in this case but you know the state got these charges as a complaint i don't remember what i said  advise practitioners in judges that all right the rule still is voluntary dismissal and refiling will hold on unless there is sounds the civic issues raised and i don't think that they said that but it's not inconsistent because they would still be in the long term of understanding of syria and there are a couple you know a few specific reasons why the there are some issues that you need to address transport and that is there's a presumption that it's valid because we've said so in all of our earlier cases them the toing on last on less the defendant can establish that certainly coming in stay yeah you know for the defense and say oh you know i couldn't make it to her i was on vacation right now how are they as a practical matter going to do that so perhaps the better meaning of it sure kids are not going to burden the defense with trying to prove very very difficult things to prove almost impossible things to prove we're just going to set out this bright line that says you can't file used as i recall there used to be a law the end of the term was interrupted even for someone in custody by let's say a motion no motion by the defense but the term started running all over again you are back to day one this i'm showing my age but i see you're much older term judge tiller says listen i'm sorry i'm going to try going to a jury trial going today that takes precedence over you mr wood al so hang on here let's see if we can get someone else to hear the case substitute which is the defendant's right in his first opportunity to make that month then what happens and the answer is nothing very much because judge souter earth does not basis force because of business for this rule the substitution of the always attributable to the defense supposedly is there you take it from one to just calling into another judge's call well you don't know you know you've jumbled up the  careers he just keeps it in his own pocket and says i'm going to continue this case for a few more months sooner already gone now to look for another judge right can we make it isn't it reasonable to believe that that was judge it can't go to the presiding judge how is it to be reassigned and i don't think we're in a position to tell the circuits in the second district how to resign cases right but i don't think you have to do that  happened but a reassignment is going to someone different than the original trial unfolds can you point to anything in those cases that say yes all of the cases in the line of the coup sundown are situations where on who gets the short slip to get the reassigned please but if we accept that proposition then it's easy to subvert the right to a speedy trial one hundred fifty nine to the hundred and sixty i