raised in exhausting but that the critical thing i think about this case in about this issue is that it's not just a sixth amendment speech trial if you it also involves the other important aspect of the sixth amendment the right to coun respondents excerpts of record and it starts of course with the barker factors parker versus when you go the length of the doorway the reason for the delay the assertion of the speedy trial right in the to what that means but in dog versus united states it was very clear and it's unclear in all of the case it's talks of the interval between the accusation and the trial and in this court this case that was a matter of thirteen months  state sites united states versus valentine where the court said six months is borderline and i would also cite the courts united states versus maria that to eighty eight and thirty eleven twenty six page eleven thirty t where it said that thirteen months the time period we have here was presumptively prejudicial and maria was a much more complicated case that was a a complex murder case which had death penalty implications so certainly the  the trial is that seven months after indictment this hearing is set about a month before trial the court comes on the bench and the judge says i hear there is a motion coming i haven't seen it but i'm going to grant t continuance and this is after hearing the defense lawyer saying my client may have a problem with this so without anything in front of them the judge grants to continue what was in a written motion  evidence this could be a three day trial and the prosecutor quotes the defense lawyer on that and the defendant when he gets up said judge this is not that complicated of a case i've been through the the disclosures three times myself and so the judge the judge comes out and basically says i'm going to put it off till the end of march without hearing anything and that's when we get into kind of the minutia that the lower court talked  due and how about the end of going into april and that's when the trial should says that turkey season he's going hunting and so there's not going to be a trial than the court then suggested page seven that much violation and then the court it page thirteen denies the substitution and this is where the district court went wrong in its may sixth order on the fourth you have a speedy trial act like us i'm from arizona you're  a certain number of days and it talks about when continuances can be had and under what conditions obviously the sixth amendment it depends on the forepart barker test so you could have a case that the sixth amendment violated the state rule as not is it is it after that the judge said he was just at the trial in may that the mr benj may have withdrawn the objection by saying he would hold the court to that but that is  again and held that against him what's he supposed to do he's gotten up and over his lawyers objection and not only demanded a speedy trial but asked for a different one and despite that fact he's told no you can't have another lawyer you can't have a speedy trial so i don't know what else it could be that that he was was to have done finally the issue is prejudice and of course in dog versus united states what mr benjamin pressing we've said in his petition for he is corpus was i had another case in the same court and demanded a speedy trial and it up getting it dismissed and i won and the other thing that's that's of record in this case at trial but it gets even more interesting as the appeal process goes on because mr benji keeps expanding on his claims but his you know now says that the speedy trial claim that he raised on direct appeal includes a right to counsel that claim has never been brought in any point in this proceeding under the federal constitution does not require that the trial be held within any particular time period and to determine raised there was the five month delay between december in january and under the state rule but the arizona court of appeals found that there was no violation of the speech trial right  well you know that's very interesting because we're not exactly sure who the record is that clear what that reference turkey turkey hunting or this is america i mean you know your honor i've lived in arizona for twenty years and i've never heard of wild turkey season so i really cannot explain exactly what they were talking about when he said when when the prosecutor says well why don't we go to and the middle of the early april or wherever it was and the judge said that's  time under the rule so there was no violation whatsoever the reason given and for that reason the trial was moved proximately two weeks and if you're in the record it's quite clear as to who suggested watch kind the trial should be delayed after defense counsel an initially right about a minute left and i just want to do a couple things one is that i want to be clear i'm not claiming a right to counsel violation but it's just something that the court needs to consider in the overall picture of the speedy trial violation petition was i told the judge that i did not wish to give up my speedy trial rights and i feel that if i had been given my constitutional right to a speedy trial the outcome of my trial would have been different period and then the court