appeals always enjoys returning to pittsburgh on at least one occasion during the year we hope that at some point in time  our case load is such that we can visit more frequently as we've done in the past and we always appreciate the hospitality we receive from the folks here in the courthouse on grand street as well as the opportunity to interact with members of the allegheny county bar and elsewhere as we will do tomorrow for the third circuit review which is hel later that thank you you may go full there and i know you haven't gotten to point number two yet but but i can't resist asking you how you can suggest without using these words that this complexity uses that term and talks about cases that may be ordinary street crime versus a serious complex conspiracy charge me can't that as one factor among many when looking at the reason for the delay and a sixth amendment case however here with the c courts did was once it dean this case to be a complex white collar case it completely skirted around the reasons for th bargain and here parker the window tells us that the criminal defendant does not have a duty to bring himself to trial however the prosecutor and the courts have a duty to ensure that the defendant has a speedy trial and so here both the prosecution and here those delays in parker was from arrest until trial and specifically in parker the court looked to motions for continuance that parker was filing and when he specifically started to oppose those motions and the court reason his trial parker viewing going to simply justice waits concurrence and barker viewing go really points to the emphasis that it is not just incarcerate individuals they're protected by the speedy trial right is also these individuals who are suffering the deprivations of their liberty indict they basically pushed the ball back to mr kushner and the defense counsel i was stunned the private counsel had to take on to prepare for this case and then mr kushner ran out of funding to pay for the private counsel i was time he gets a public defender the public defender had to take time  to familiarize themselves with the case i would find another public defender felt that they would be more aptly able to handle this case i would shine they had to take on this case and all of this could have been happening concurrently to the state preparing their case out of the state chose to wait the fifteen months to and does so you want you want a rule that says that as soon as the state has evidence of some crime it must indict for that crime you'd rather have somebody indicted six or seven times every one year we start to look at the speedy trial right and i seem to have returned to the to the restricted delayed the reasons were the judge heard of and had asked a few minutes ago specifically about prejudice and  i'm not sure i've heard you articulate just what the prejudice was here that was experienced by mr bush yes roger the district court correctly stated that as a as the state questioners suffered as far as anxiety and fear are so similar harms to all criminal defendants however that's the specific reason that we have the speedy trial right and he saw it and in fact barker characterize  factors that it looks at one examining budgets and here you had a defendant who was accused in this society his name was in the newspaper he was suffering all this prejudice how is it different from the previous and every criminal case the difference is that he suffered this for fifteen months without being able to go to the court and have any say in the procedural posture of this case and the question becomes a probably has given no answer to how long this could have gone on could the state of waited two years to indict one year you look at the full barker inquiry however at fifteen months the state trial court stated that this was not uncommon delay for a complex case such as this and the speedy trial act in federal court requires all morning mayor please the court my name is even david greater i'm in the system prosecutor monmouth county new jersey i represent how many in this case the attorney general of the state of new jersey this court should affirm the judgment below because the district court correctly concluded that the new jersey state courts rejection of mr kushner's constitutional speedy trial plan amounted to a reasonable application of barker's for factor balancing test and if we look at those four factors we see the link for the delay number one the delay in this case was fifteen months the delay complaint of fifteen months from arrest to indictment now that the way of the filing of charges or rest to the time of trial that is a distinction that we have here in the fifteen month delay that cushion here is complaint right honor it is a distinction to an extent if if in a lot of cases where the court is looking from the delay from the arrest to the indictment when the court moves to the second  prong of the barker analysis which is the reason for the delay the course of tracks any delay that was caused by aid defendant from the overall delay that would be analyzed under the remaining barker factors and  for example in the case that we said in our brief united states versus taylor the defendant in that case complained of delay from arrest to trial the court this court found that the post indictment away in that case was attributable solely to the defendants in the nuva ring opposed indictment filing motions and getting continuances and then narrowed its focus to the delay between the arrest and the indictment which in that case was eight months and the court found that in that case it was a fairly complex case and the state i'm sorry the government's assertion of the need to have extensive preparation to present the case to a grand jury justified the entirety of that eight eight month delay so yes your honor does most cases do look from the date of arrest to the day to trial but in all cases that that range  narrowed through the remaining barker facts so what would be too long and from your perspective well like parker says each case rests on its own facts so in barker itself you had a hearin case and in this case the fifteen month delay was was not that too long and is a matter of practice and experience in the state of new jersey is it unusual to have had several charges filed and issue only and then a an indictment which invites on additional charges at a later date i would say it's unusual it's not common but it's also not unusual things happen after a case after a defendant is arrested when when the prosecutors get the files and start pouring over the files where there may be additional charges added in a grand jury and that's entirely proper under the state court fifteen months while that does trigger judicial scrutiny and of the remaining darker factors we also have to look at how much longer is it then that twelve months standard in here it's only three months longer than the bare minimum delay that's necessary to trigger that judicial scrutiny so that is it does way in the petitioners favor but very minimally so as the district court found and turning into the reasons for the way the state courts here found that the reason for the delay was based on the complex nature of this case the state needed the time to prepare the case for korean cherry and then when they got into the granger e presentment mode there were charges that they discovered in tax fraud mr goddard suggests that the district who are seems to be creating something of a complexity exception here where you say i disagree with that your honor i'm actually with the what the state courts did here by factoring in this complexity of the case into their overall barker analysis simply gave credence to what parker itself said that the ways in complex cases are far more smaller ball than the the lays in cases involving ordinary street crimes and in fact the trial court here the state can give us an example of a complex case that would violate the speedy trial require as in too long a what's too long i get i really can't your honor without so then to the chief point i mean are you asking for a de facto complexity exception to the speedy trial absolutely not i'm simply saying then give us some examples of complex cases that would run afoul of the speedy trial right well maybe the dog itself it's like i said it's contractual it's dependent upon all the circumstances in the case so if you look at dog it your honour's  never found the defendant and the defendant was on the lam in south america and panama and somehow he fell off the radar he ended up coming back to the united states eight a half years later the government finds him just by simply running it running his name through a credit check and that case the defendant he knew nothing about these charges until he was arrested eight and a half years later the government snuggly agents was the let's look at that assertion issue as it is applied in this case i think the district who are concluded that mr bush here had adequately asserted his right lot of what we do know from the procedural history of this case is that he did not move to dismiss the indictment on the lake grounds during the fifteen month pre invasion period what should we make  there is unto the way and bringing the case to the grand jury so in it says that the the trial judge or the judge may  or her right to a speedy trial in a reasonable and timely fashion and this court has recognized that when a defendant fails to do that in a reasonable and timely fashion that that factor will weigh against a defendant in the overall analysis and in fact in dog itself the government had asserted in that case that the defendant had known about the charges all along and was on the lam because of the charges and the supreme court said had he actually known that he was under indictment during that six years his failure to assert his speedy trial upon him over that time would weigh heavily against him and the same happened and barker barker never assert claim for more than three years and that was weighed against him in the overall analysis and barker it was a factor that the court said indicated that he did not want a speedy trial indeed he was delaying the case in the hopes of than any other types of prejudice that any criminal defendant suffers in any case and this court in particular has refused to ascribe any significant weight to the types of prejudice without and it a an additional showing of anxiety to a level that it calls psychic injury like and united states versus dryer where the defendant had suffered severe depression and that testimony was not compel a finding that the petitioner suffered an appreciation of those six men are right thank you very which states that an indictment should be filed within thirty days of unrest which is analogous to the present case and also more importantly it was decided before the supreme court's decision in doggett vs united states this eight month delay that occurred between arrest and indictment in united states versus taylor would not have fallen within this one year inquiry set forth in the court's decision in target versus united states and second there is no violation when indictment has not occurred within a year when there have been continue to be investigative steps in a complex matt defense for this arrest or any of the charges that later came in the indictment and thus the state acted contrary to this established one year presumptious prejudiced by not