of the u s federal marshals and remained there apparently until he was then transferred to terre haute roughly september seventeenth of two thousand i'm now the question here is rights automatically run in the absence of any delays chargeable to the defendant he's got to be tried with a hundred twenty days it's the state's job the state's duty to make sure that that trial occurs within the hundred twenty days it's not the defendant's chair and here the problem is that the state didn't really do anything to make sure that happens what the record reflects is that the prosecutor at the december thirty first hearing said oh i talked to the assistant u s attorney and they said we can't have it i don't know what to do and that was pretty much the state's response throughout the entire time i can't get in here that won't let me have him what can i do really if the all the cases appear to turn on the order of custody if they're federal custody first then the hundred twenty days doesn't run then you've got a lot to detain around somebody if you want to get  never even attempted to issue a written till march thirtieth two thousand and nine we don't know why from this record why that is and in the absence of any information of why that is in this record we can only assume that the attorney lucie county may have done to try to get him there i find it very difficult to believe that two jurisdictions can't figure out some way to transfer temporary custody to somebody to resolve this problem there are ways to do even in the absence of written motion and the court also has the option of reviewing for ineffective assistance failing to file a written so i'm not sure that the absence of a written motion is necessarily the delay is five hundred seventy days the reason is the state's attorney for whatever reason didn't try to get it didn't try very hard to get it back to the federal marshals there's really nothing in the record that we can point to th us any indication that they tried really hard and just work all like i said they did was a phone call a letter and an e mail and the fact of the matter is you know there is a tension probably between the state statutory speedy trial right and what happens when they're in custody of several jurisdictions but if speedy trial violation that you know i'm talking about a practical matter  ey want to make it clear that they try to get the defendant back from the federal authorities starting from the simpler thirty first two thousand and eight second hearing in this case they that was the first contact with the federal authorities u s attorney's office so a little bit over a mile from where you arrested was the first contact with the u s attorney's office and from that from that clear and there was so this was a kind of a confusing circumstances surrounding his arrest the state federal charges  state would like to know that the senate has waived his right to the speedy trial violation point same as you as was noted section one fourteen dash one requires both the written motion and the motion be within a reasonable amount of time after the rain this is the minutes now claiming that he's been in state custody that whole time this was over eighteen months and the or it was an oral motion made on the same day prior to trial starting me i think that the inconsistent language can stand that helps the state they can they criticize the another second district eight people worse of course very which does the word choice in our sperry at least for the political holding is a little card a little confusing but even stand it's comes to the same conclusion that obviously it as the u s attorney's consistently told the state if it wasn't brought back to livingston county until the federal matter was polluted i think the main thing to look at here as far as the constitutional fact whites speak face trial factors is but when it hasn't been prejudiced whatsoever i think the factors they look at my understanding about the the impression i get is that the local authorities didn't know what was going on i think that it was a confusing says circumstances  because of this simultaneous arrest on a much more serious federal charge that may result in federal authorities improperly or properly taking defendant from livingston county  any other questions or pint simultaneous custody because there is no question what there is a reflection of this he's in state custody as of november fifteenth two thousand hearing that there was some discussion here are  ary and the problem with our theory is actually i think it's twofold first of all a lot of the continuances that happened before that particular defendant was a federal custody occurred in under sunstein whitely was in state custody  there was a motion for substitution zirkle continuances cetera et cetera there were three court dates within a month where he was apparently it's a federal custody for some reason and the the language is kind of flip and more to the point there is no other case that that stands for the proposition that the mere fact that you're in federal custody tolls your hundred twenty days so i would not be very comfortable resting on ha finally making the motion in a reasonable amount of time the motion for discharge there is an irony in the state complaining that mr samuels waited too long to make a motion for discharge when they didn't even get a trial for five hundred seventy days but more to the point as i believe is just pointed out they didn't even bring him to his prelim until march so i'm not exactly sure when defense counsel was supposed to consult with this client and determine if that was going to be what they were going to do so while there were many delays the vast majority of them in fact almost all of them were at the state's