I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 4 - CT - 0 1 9 3 1 - S CT PHELA N TERR ELL GUICE
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 04/ 2004 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. W I NS T ON L
. KI DD COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LANT: J OSHUA AARON TURNER M ERRI DA CO XW ELL AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : J EFFR EY A
. K LI N G FU SS DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: F AYE P E T E RS ON NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 01/ 11/ 2007 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. CAR LS ON , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. A gg ri eved by the h i s conv i ct i on foragg ravat ed assaultand sent ence o f tw enty years’ i m pr i s onm entas a habi tual off end er, P hel an Ter r el l G ui ce appeal ed t o us . T hi s cas e w as
as s i gned t o the C our to f A ppeal s , w hi ch af

f i r m ed the f

i nal j udgm entof

convi ct i on and
s e n te n c e e n te re d b y th e C ir c u it C o u rt fo r t h e F ir s t J u d ic ia l D is tr ic t o f H in d s C o u n ty . W e

### 2

ther eaf t ergr ant ed G ui ce’ s pet i t i on f orw r i tof

cert i or ar i
. U pon a met i cul ous r evi ew of t he
r e c o r d a n d th e a p p l i c a b l e l a w, we a f f i r m. F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT ¶2. W e glean t he fol l ow i ng fact s f rom the o pini on of the C ou rtof A pp eal s: O n the eve ni ng of

Sept ember2, 2001, a per s on cam e t o t he B ol l es ' s r es i dence
. A n ita B o lles a n sw e re d th e d o o r, an d the m a n a t th e d o o r a sk e d to sp e a k w ith herbrother , C l ar ence "B r i an" B ol l es , J r . A f t erhear i ng the doorbel l r i ng, B r i an pr ocee ded t o go ans w erthe door , notknow i ng thathi s s i s t erha d alr eady answ ered i t . W hen B r i an r eac hed the door , the vi s i t orpul l ed outa gun and b e g a n sh o o tin g . B ria n su ffe re d a g u n sh o t w o u n d to th e a b d o m e n , w h ile A n ita es cape d unharm ed. A ni t a B ol l es w as abl e t o pi ck outherbr other ' s as s ai l antf r om a pol i ce phot ogr aphi c l i ne- up. She i dent i f i ed [ Phel an T err el l ] G ui ce a s the per s on w ho ca m e to th eir ho u se o n the e v en ing o f S ep tem b er 2 , 2 0 0 1 , an d sh o t her b roth er. A ttr i al , G ui ce t es t i f

i ed t hat he did nots hootB r i an. H e al s o t es t i f i ed thathe w a s a t his g ra n d m o th e r' s h o u se in Y a z o o C ity o n the ev e n in g o f th e in c id e n t. G u ice fu rth e r te stifie d th a t th e re w e re n o w itn e ss e s w h o c o u ld su b sta n tiate h is cl ai m thathe w as outof t ow n w hen the i nci dentoccurr ed. G u ice v. S ta te , 2 0 0 6 M iss. A p p . L E X IS 7 2 , * 2 , ¶¶ 3 -5 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶3. O n A pr i l 9, 2002, Phel an T err el l G ui ce, har dl y a s tr anger t o our cr i m i nal court s , w as in d icte d fo r th e c rim e o f a g g ra v a ted as sa u lt fo r sh o o tin g o n e C lar e n c e (B ria n ) B o lles , Jr. in the s t om ach w i th a 9- m i l l i m et erhandgun. T hi s i ndi ctm ental s o char ged G ui ce w i th bei ng a h ab itu al offen d er pu rsua n t to th e p rov isi o n s of M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -19 -81 (R ev . 2 0 0 0 ), i nas much a s G ui c e ha d p r i orf e l on y c on vi c t i on s i n Yaz oo County f orpo s s e s s i on of

s t ol en pr operty a nd a ut o the f t . G ui c e was a rr a i gn e d on the a gg r a va t e d a s s a ul ti nd i c t menton O ct ober30, 2002, and he pr om pt l y t her eaf t erre cei ved cour t - appoi nt ed couns el
. O n the l ong

### 3

r oad t o tr i al , ther e w ere vari ou s mot i ons f i l ed by the St at e, G ui ce, thr ough couns el , and G ui ce, pr o s e. A s thes e mot i ons become r el evantdur i ng the cour s e of ouraddr essi ng the
re lev a n t issu e p re se n ted , the se m o tio n s w ill b e d isc u ss e d in m o re d e tail, bu t su ffic e itto s tate her e thati n due cour s e, G ui ce w entt o tr i al , w i th court - appoi nt ed couns el , on the aggr avat ed
a ss a u lt i n d ictm e n t. ¶4
. W e p rese n t h e re a su m m a ry o f the ev iden ce p rese n ted in the S tat e’s c ase -i n -ch ief. A ni t a B ol l es t es t i f

i ed thaton the dat e of

the i nci dent , Sept ember2, 2001, s he ans w er ed the d o o rbe ll to fi n d a p erso n sh e d id n o t kn o w inq u ir ing ab o u t her b roth er, C laren ce B o ll es, Jr. ( w ho w a s a l s o kn own a s “ Br i a n” )
. N otk no w i ng tha th i s s i s t e rh a d a l r e a dy a ns w e r e d the d o o r, B ria n a p p e a re d , w h e re u p o n th e stra n g e r a sk e d “ A re y o u B ria n ,” a n d b e fo re B ria n c o u ld
r es pond, the s tr anger“pul l ed outa gun and s t art ed s hoot i ng, ” hi t t i ng B r i an i n the abdomen. L at er , w hi l e atthe hos pi t al w i th herbrother , A ni t a st at ed t o pol i ce de t ect i ves that , w hi l e s he d id n o t k n o w th e n a m e o f th e m a n w h o s h o t h e r b ro th e r, sh e w o u ld d e fin itely b e a b le to id e n tify th e sh o o ter . A c o u p le o f d a y s la ter , w h e n sh o w n a p h o to g ra p h ic lin e u p w ith six p h o to g ra p h s o f d iffe re n t m e n , A n ita im m e d iate ly p ick e d o u t th e p h o to g ra p h o f P h elan T errell G ui ce as be i ng the per s on w ho s hotherbr other
. She l i kew i s e i dent i f i ed G ui ce a ttr i al as t he sh o o ter. A ft er po inti n g ou t G u ice, the p rose cu tor ask ed A n it a, “A re yo u ab so lu tely su re that’ s t he m an yo u saw sho ot you r br otheron S eptem ber 2 , 20 01 ?” A nit a res po nd ed, “Y es, nd I a m .” ¶5 . J acks on pol i ce of f i cerG r egor y R obi ns on, w ho w as one of t he of f i cer s w ho i nves t i ga t e d thi s i nc i de nt , s t a t e d tha twhen h e a rr i ve d a tthe Bol l e s ’ h ome, the v i c t i m had

### 4

al r eady l ef

t , butthe vi ct i m ’ s si s t er(A ni t a) w as st i l l on the s cene . A ni t a des cr i bed the s hoot er t o O f f i cerR ob i nson as a “[ b] l ack mal e, m edi um compl exi on, about160 pounds
. ” O f f i cer R obi ns on als o re cover ed s hel l cas i ngs atthe s cene , and s t at ed thathe not i ced bl ood and a b u ll et ho le i n the s cre en d o o r. ¶6
. B r yon M cI nt i r e, a ni ne - ye a re mpl oy e e of the M i s s i s s i pp i Cr i me Lab or at or y, w as t ender ed and a cce pt ed, w i thoutobj ect i on, as an expe r t“i n the f i el d of f i r earm s and t ool
m arks. ” M cInt i re i den t i fi ed tw o p roj ect i l es off ered i n to e vidence as hav i ng “cl ass
c h a ra c te ri s tic s c o n s is te n t w ith a .3 8 c a lib e r a n d 9 m illim e te r c a lib e r.” ¶7. W i l l i am ( W i l l ) G ar dner , a 25- year J PD empl oyee w ho w or ked i n the vi ol entcr i m es di vi s i on, r ece i ved a c al l t o tr avel t o the U ni ver s i ty of M i s s i s s i ppi M edi cal C ent er . U pon
arr i val atthe hos pi t al , O f f i cerG ar dnert al ked w i th A ni t a B ol l es , and then l at er , m ade a
sec o n d tr ip to the h o sp it al a fte r g en era ti n g a p h o tog rap h li n eu p , w h ich in clud ed G u ice’s p h o to g ra p h . In p u tti n g to g e th e r th e p h o to lin e u p , O ffic e r G a rd n e r a ttem p ted to o b tain six phot ogr aphs of

i nd i vi du a l s w i th s i mi l a rf e a tur es , s uch “a s f

aci al hai r , f

aci al f eatur es , anythi ng l i ke that
. ” A ccor di ng t o O f f i cerG ar dner , w hen s how n t he phot o l i neup, A ni t a, w i thoutany h esit ati o n , p icke d o u t G u ice a s the p erso n w h o sh o t her b roth er. ¶8
. R ozerr i o C amel , a 1 2- ye a rJ PD e m pl oy e e w ho a l s o wor ke d i n the vi ol e nt cr i m es di vi s i on, tr avel ed t o the hos pi t al and r etr i eved pr oj ect i l e f r agmen t s w hich ha d been t aken f r o m th e b o d y o f

th e v i c t i m.

### 5

¶9
. L y n n G o o d w in, a 7 -y e a r JP D e m p lo y e e , w o rk e d a s a c rim e sc en e inv esti g ator. O f f i cerG oodw i n col l ect ed evi dence atthe s cene , i ncl udi ng s hel l cas i ngs , w hi ch s he id e n tified a s a W in c h e ste r 9 -m ill im e ter L u g e r sh e ll. ¶10. T he vi ct i m , C l ar ence ( B r i an) B ol l es , J r . , t es t i f i ed thathe di d notgeta good l ook at the per s on w ho s hothi m i n t he abdom en, and thatw hen the per s on s t art ed s hoot i ng hi m , he pus hed hi s s i s t er , A ni t a, outof the w ay and s l amm ed t he door , and af t erthe doorw as cl os ed, tw o m or e s hot s came thr ough the door
. B r i an al s o i nf or m ed the j ury of

hi s ext ens i ve i nj ur i es
s uf f er ed as a r es ul tof

the guns hotw ound. ¶11. A f

t er the S t at e re s t ed and the def endant ’ s m ot i on f

or a di r ect ed verdi ct w as deni ed, G ui ce w as the onl y w i tnes s w ho t es t i f i ed i n t he def

endant ’ s cas e- i n- chi ef

. G ui ce of

f er ed up an al i bi def

ens e, cl ai m i ng t o have be en athi s gr andmothe r ’ s hous e i n Y azoo Ci ty. G ui ce
e x p re ss ly d e n ied sh o o tin g B ria n B o lle s. O n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n b y th e S tate , G u ice a g a in
s t at ed t haton t he day a nd eveni ng of the s hoot i ng on Sept ember2nd, w hi ch w as a Sunday, he w as athi s gr andmot her ’ s hous e, buthi s gr andmot herw as notpr es ent . G ui ce t es t i f i ed that on Sundays , hi s gr andmot herw as or di nar i l y atchur ch f r om betw een 8: 00 or9: 00 i n t he
m orni ng, unt i l ar ound 10: 30 atni ght
. E ven though G ui ce s t at ed thathe ha d be en t o chur ch
w i th hi s gra ndm otheron pr i orocca s i ons , he di d notknow the name of the chur ch s he att en d ed
. G u ice stat ed th at his au n t an d un cle also li v ed w ith his gran d m o ther, b u t th ey w ere l i kew i s e notatthe hous e w hi l e G ui ce w as ther e on thatday. G ui ce a l s o t es t i f i ed thathe had
a cous i n w ho kne w he w as i n Y azoo C i ty on thatda y. I nt er es t i ngl y, G ui ce di d nots ubpoena

### 6

hi s gr andmot her , aunt , uncl e, orcous i n t o t es t i f y. G ui ce expl ai ned thathe di d nots ubpoena any of thes e r el at i ves be caus e they di d notper s onal l y know he w as i n Y azoo Ci ty thatday. ¶12. A f

t eronl y f i f ty- f i ve mi nut es of

del i ber at i ons , G ui ce w as f ound gui l ty by the j ury, and, i n due cour s e, t he tr i al j udge s ent ence d G ui ce t o tw enty years ’ i m pr i s onm entas a habi tual
o ffe n d e r, p u rsu a n t to M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -1 9 -8 1 (R e v . 2 0 0 0 ). G u ice ti m e ly p e rfe c ted h is app eal t o thi s C ou rt , and this case w as ass i gn ed to the C ou rtof A pp eal s.

PROCEEDI NG S BEF OR E THE CO URT O F AP PEALS ¶13. B ef

or e the C ourtof

A ppeal s , G ui ce, w i th a ppel l at e couns el di ff erentt han hi s tr i al
c o u n se l, claim ed tr ial co u rterro r i n (1) refu sing to d ism iss his ca se fo r vio lat ion s o f his fed era l and stat e c o n sti tuti o n al ri g h ts to a sp ee d y tri al, as w ell as fo r vio lat ion o f his statu tory ri gh tt o a sp ee dy tri al ; (2) ref usi ng t o all ow G uice t o sub m i tan alt ernat e t heo ry of hi s case t o the j ury; and, ( 3) r ef

us i ng t o al l ow G ui ce’ s tr i al couns el t o cr os s - exami ne A ni t a B ol l es on thi s al t ernat e theory thats om ehow M ar i o J ones , A ni t a’ s ex- boyf r i end and t he f

atherof her chi l d, had s uppos edl y m ade thr eat s t o t he B ol l es f ami l y, and may have s om ehow been i nvol ved i n t he s hoot i ng of B r i an. G ui ce, thr ough hi s appel l at e couns el , l i kew i s e cl ai m ed on appea l thathi s tr i al c ouns el r ender ed i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance by ( 1) f ai l i ng t o as s erthi s f

eder al
a n d sta te c o n stitu tio n a l an d sta tu to ry rig h ts to a sp e e d y trial; a n d , (2 ) fa ili n g to in v e stig a te th e S tate ’s w itn e ss e s b e fo re trial. ¶ 1 4
. Af

t e ra d d r e s s i n g th e s e i s s u e s , th e C o u r to f Ap p e a l s , i n a u n a n i mo u s d e c i s i o n ( two j udges notpart i ci pat i ng) , f ound thes e i s s ues t o be w i thoutm er i tand thus af f i r m ed the tr i al
courtj udgm entof convi ct i on and se nt ence . A f t erthe C our tof

A ppeal s deni ed hi s m ot i on f or

### In hi s pe ti ti on for wri t of ce rtiorari, Guice, through c ounse l, as se rt ed that he wa s 1 

### den ied (1 ) his six th amen dmen t ri g ht to aspeedy trial und er bo th th e federal an d state cons ti tutions , a s well as his statut ory right to a spe edy tri alpurs uant

to Mi ss . CodeAnn. § 9 9-1 7-1 (Rev . 20 00 ); (2) h is sixthamendment ri g ht to c ro ss-examin ationas well as h is ri ght t o pre se nt an alte rnatethe ory of theca se ; and, ( 3) e ff

ec tive a ss is tanceof c ounse l a s gu aranteedun der o ur fed eral andstate con stitutio ns. 7 reh ea ri n g , G u ice fil ed h is pe ti ti o n for w ri t of ce rt iorari, asse rtin g g ro u n d s for this C o u rt ’s
r evi ew of

t he C our tof A ppeal s ’ deci s i on si m i l art o t hos e as s ert ed by w ay of ass i gnm ent s of
err or f or consi derat i on by the C ou rtof A pp eal s. DI S CU S S I ON ¶15. W e have al r eady s etoutthe i s s ues a ddr es s ed by the C our tof A ppeal s , and w e have l i kew i s e s t at ed thatvi r tual l y the s ame i s s ues w er e as s er t ed by G ui ce i n hi s certpet i t i on. 1 W hi l e w e have the author i ty t o addr es s al l i s s ues r ai s ed bef or e the C our tof A pp eal s and addr es s ed by thatcourt , w e l i kew i s e unques t i onabl y have t he author i ty t o “l i m i tthe ques t i on
on r evi ew . ” W e do so t oday. W hi l e t he i s s ues addr es s ed by t he C our tof A ppeal s coul d have been addr es s ed i n a myri ad of w ays , w e do notdi s agr ee w i th the concl us i ons r eac hed, nor do w e f i nd t hatt he C our tof A ppeal s ’ deci s i on i n t hi s cas e conf l i ct s w i th any pr i ordeci s i on of the C our tof

A ppeal s orthi s C our t , orf ai l s t o consi der an d addr es s a contr ol l i ng
cons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i on. W i th t hi s havi ng been s ai d w e now r es t at e f orcl ar i ty i n di s cus s i on the one i s s ue w e have chos en t o addr es s upon ourgr antof cert i or ar i i n thi s cas e.

### 2004 was a l ea p year; thus , ther e we re29 days in February. 2 

### 8 W H ET H ER TH E T R I A L C O U R T ER R ED I N F A I LING TO D I SM I SS GUI CE ’ S I NDI CT M EN T F OR VI OLAT I ON OF M I S S . CO DE ANN . SE C T I O N 99- 17- 1. ¶16. G ui ce w as arr ai gned on O ct ober30, 2002, and w entt o t r i al on M ay 3, 2004, s om e f i ve hundr ed f

i f ty- one ( 55 1) days af

t erthe dat e of

hi s arr ai gnm ent . O urs peedy tr i al s t atut e, 2 M i ss. C od e A nn . § 9 9-17-1 (R ev. 20 00 ), st at es:

U nl es s good caus e be s how n, and a c ont i nuance dul y grant ed by t he court , al l of

f ens es f orw hi ch i ndi ctm ent s are pres ent ed t o the courts hal l be tr i ed no l at erthan tw o hundr ed s eventy ( 270) days af t erthe ac cus ed has been arr ai gned. ¶ 1 7 . W ith th is statu te sq u a re ly b e fo re u s, w e m u st retu rn to th e p ro c e d u ra l h isto ry o f th is
cas e. A f t erG ui ce r ece i ved courta ppoi nt ed couns el , hi s c ouns el f or thw i th f

i l ed a m ot i on f

or d i s c o v e ry . On A p r i l 2 2 , 2 0 0 3 , G u i c e f i l e d a p r o s e m o t i o n r e q u e s t i n g p u b l i c r e c o r d s . Of
s i gni f i canti m por t , G ui ce, on February 5, 2004, f i l ed a pr o s e mot i on to dis m i ss the
a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt i n d ictm e n t d u e to a fa ilu re to p ro v id e a “ fa st a n d s p e e d y tria l.” O n A p ril 20, 2004, G ui ce, thr ough his cour t - appoi nt ed couns el , f i l ed a mot i on i n l i m i ne s eeki ng
e x c lu sio n o f an y ev id e n c e co n c e rn in g A n ita B o lles ’s p re trial id e n tifica tio n o f G u ice , as w e ll
as B ol l es ’ s i n- courti dent i f i cat i on of

G ui ce. O n the nextday, G ui ce, thr ough couns el , f i l ed
a se c o n d m o tio n in lim in e se e k in g a p ro h ib iti o n o f th e S tate ’s im p e a c h m e n t o f G u ice w ith h is p rio r fe lo n y c o n v ictio n s in th e e v e n t G u ice te stifie d a t tria l. O n A p ril 2 8 , 2 0 0 4 , the S tate fi led a m o ti o n in li m ine see k ing ex clus ion o f an y ev iden ce co n ce rnin g the c ri m inal h ist o ry of the vi ct i m , C l ar ence ( B r i an) B ol l es , J r . The tr i al c our tc onduct ed a hear i ng on A pr i l 28,

### 9

2004, conce r ni ng G ui ce’ s m ot i on t o excl ude A ni t a B ol l es ’ s i dent i f i cat i on t es t i m ony, and on A pr i l 29, 2004, the tr i al cour tent er ed an or derdenyi ng G ui ce’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne conc erni ng B ol l es ’ s i dent i f

i cat i on t es t i m ony. ¶18. O n A pr i l 30, 2004, thr ee days be f or e the s chedul ed tr i al da t e, G ui ce’ s court - appoi nt ed
c o u n se l, an a ss ista n t p u b lic d e fe n d e r, filed a m o tio n to w ith d ra w as G u ice ’s a tto rn e y . In th is
m ot i on, the as s i s t antpubl i c def enderas s ert ed, i nt eral i a: T haton A pr i l 29, 2004, the D ef endantw as i ndi cat ed [ s i c] he w as uns at i s f i ed w ith c o u n se l an d th a t h e w a n ted a n o th e r c o u n se l. T haton A pr i l 29, 2004 the D ef endantal s o i ndi cat ed thathe di d notw antany evi dence br oughtout , di r ectorby cr os s - exami nat i on, thatM ar i o J ones w as the as s ai l antr athert han D ef endant
. T her e i s t es t i m ony i n t he D i s covery of num er ous thr eat s by M ar i o J ones t o the vi ct i m ’ s f ami l y and s om e ques t i ons as t o i dent i ty. T he D ef

endanthas i ns truct ed couns el nott o us e thi s evi dence , w hi ch couns el cont ends i s cruci al t o the D ef endant ’ s def

ens e. A ddi t i onal l y, the D ef endantr ef

uses t o cooper at e w i th couns el i n the pr epar at i on of

tr i al , even i n the eve ntthe C our tdeni es thi s m ot i on. ¶1 9
. W ith this b ac k d rop , it is n o w crit ical to set o u t in d etail w h at o cc u rred w h en G u ice’s
ca se w as c all ed u p for tri al on M ay 3 , 2 0 0 4
. A lth o u g h the fo ll o w ing q u o te from the re co rd i s l engthy, w e dee m i tcr i t i cal t o a compl et e under s t andi ng of w hatoc curr ed bef

or e the tr i al j udge conc erni ng the s t atut ory spee dy t r i al i s s ue. H er e i s w hatoccurr ed bef or e J udge K i dd on the day of

tr i al ( f orthe sake o f c l ar i ty, w e ment i on her e that“M r . A l exande r ” i s the pr os ecut or , a nd“ M s . H a rr i s ” a nd“ M r . K napp ” a r e the c ou rt - a pp oi nt ed att orneys r epr es ent i ng G u ice): T H E C O U R T : W e have tw o c as es s ett oday. T he f i r s ti s St at e ver s us Phel an G u ice . A m o tio n to w ith d ra w h a s b e e n filed in th a t m a tter a n d a m o tio n in

### 10

l i m i ne h as been fi l ed b y the Stat e. L etm e go ahead a n d h ea r bo th o f tho se m at t ers . M R . A L E X A N D ER : Y ou rHonor , I woul d thi nk tha ti n the b e s ti nt e r e s tof ju d icia l ec o n o m y w e s h o u ld h e a r th e m o tio n to w ith d ra w first b e c a u se if they' r e al l ow ed t o w i thdr aw , the othertw o m att er s w i l l pr obabl y be ac ademi c. T HE CO UR T : W e ' l l h e a rth e mo t i o n t o wi th d r a w. M R . K N A P P : Y ou r H on or, i f i tpl ease the C ou rt . I , al on g w i th G ret a H arr i s, re p re se n t th e d e fe n d a n t, M r. G u ice , an d I a m re lativ e ly n e w to th e c a se b u t I a m p e rs o n a lly a w a re o f t h e fa c ts th a t u n d e rl ie m y m o tio n to w ith d ra w . M s . H arr i s w as f

i red, if you w i l l , by the D ef

endantand, as I under s t and, the r eas ons f orthatw as the D ef

endantw as unhapp y w i th M s . H arr i s ' conduct r egar di ng the pr etr i al m ot i ons thatw er e hear d. I w oul d as k thatats om e poi nt re lev a n t an d co n v en ient to the C o u rtthat the D efe n d an t him self ad d ress this i s s ue. W e f i l ed the mot i on t o w i thdraw t o compl y w i th the rul es of pr of es s i onal c o n d u c t w h ich sa y w h e n w e ' re ter m in a ted w e a re o b lig a te d to m o v e to wi th d r a w. T H E C O U R T : I re c e iv e d the m o tio n to w ith d ra w . It w a s file d o n A p ril 3 0 th a n d I re c e iv e d it th is m o rn in g . W h e n d id th e d e fe n d a n t term in a te c o u n se l? M R . K N A P P : Y ou r H on or, m ay I ask M s. H arr i s? T H E C O U R T : M s . H arr i s ? M S . H A R R IS : Y o u r H o n o r, I w e n t o v e r to sp e a k w ith [G u ice ] on A p ril 2 9 th and he i nf

or m ed me atthatt i m e thathe w as nots at i s f i ed w i th the w ay thi ngs w e re c o n d u c ted a t th e m o tio n in lim in e h e a rin g s. A n d ju st to b e c lea r th a t I had hea r d w ha th e h a d s a i d, I a s ke d M r . Knap p t o go o ve rwi th me t he f ol l ow i ng day s o t hathe coul d i n f acthearf r om M r . G ui ce. T H E C O U R T : O kay. M R . K N A PP: A nd, Y ourH onor , w e f i l ed thi s mot i on pur s uantt o the rul es of pr of es s i onal c onducta nd w e w oul d r eques tthatthe C our ta l l ow the D ef endant t o expr es s hi s ow n r eas ons f ort erm i nat i ng ours ervi ces atthe pr opert i m e.

### 11

M ore problem at i c, Y ou r H on or, ar e C ou nts 2 and 3 and these ar e the law yers' obj ect i ons and mot i ons . T he def endanthas i nst ruct ed us nott o us e any r e f e r e n c e o rd e f

e n s e t h a ts o me o n e e l s e ma y h a v e c o mmi t t e d th i s c r i me . S o me of thi s evi dence m ay very w el l be hea r s ay and s om e may notbe, butas you can i m agi ne, i t ' s ext re m el y i m por t antand i ti s pr i m ary t o the ca s e thati f the D ef endants ays he di dn' tdo i tany evi dence of - - s peci f i cal l y thr eat s by a nother part y t o i m pl y t hatthe otherparty m ay have done thi s c r i m e i s c ruci al t o our def ens e. H ow ever , w e' ve been i ns truct ed nott o pur s ue thatl i ne of ques t i oni ng orpr es ent at i on of

evi dence
. A ddi t i onal l y - - and I s peak f i r s t - hand atthi s poi nti n t i m e - - I di d i ndeed on the 30th go overw i th M s . H arr i s and t al ked t o the D ef endantm ys el f

and w e have had no coope r at i on and w er e t ol d thatw e w oul d nothave a ny cooper at i on fro m th e D e fe n d a n t. T H E C O U R T : C o o p e ra tio n to d o w h a t? M R . K N A P P : T o h el p in the tr i al becau se I t old the D efendan tw e m ay lose thes e mot i ons and I s ai d i f w e l os e thes e mot i ons you' ve gotus and w e nee d t o getr eady f

ort es t i m ony and everythi ng e l s e. A nd the D ef endantatthatpoi nt i n t i m e s ai d he' s notgoi ng t o hel p us w i th anythi ng and does n' tw antt o do anythi ng exce ptt o getus of f the ca s e. Y ourH onor , I speak to t he C our tf r om a f ew year s of

exper i ence . I ' ve had unhappy cl i ent s bef

or e and I ' ve had them fi l e mot i ons t o t erm i nat e bef or e, even on the day of

tr i al , butI ' ve neve rhad them j us tcompl et el y r ef us e t o t al k t o m e. U su all y they tal k m y ea r off. In th e e v e n t th e C o u rt d e n ies o u r m o tio n -- a n d I trie d to p re p a re h im -- I to ld hi m thatthe C our thas author i ty t o deny t hi s m ot i on and w e nee d t o be r eady anyw ay. H e w as notgoi ng t o pr epar e f orhi s t es t i m ony oranythi ng el s e. O f cour s e, M s . H arr i s and I have done w hatw e can t o pre par e f ort r i al t oday b u t w e a re se v e re ly u n d e rc u t b y n o t b e in g a b le to b rin g u p th e m o st v iab le def ens e and thi s l ack of

c ooper at i on i s note xagger at ed. I gotm os t l y nods and notm any of

them
. T he onl y author i ty I have, Y ourH onor , ar e the R ul es of Pr of es s i onal C onductand on t hi s par t i cul arrul e i ts ays m ay w i thdr aw , w her eas th e f i r s tru l e I c i t e d s a y s s h a l l wi th d r a w. T H E C O U R T : Shal l w i thdr aw f orw hatr eas on?

### 12

M R . K N A P P : I f

a c l i e n tt e r m i n a t e s y o u , y o u s h a l l w i t h d r a w . B u tw h a tI 'm ar gui ng n ow i s a s ub pa r a gr a ph of 1. 16 , Y ou rH on or , tha ts a ys c ou ns e l m ay wi th d r a w, p e r h a p s a n i mp o r t a n td i s t i n c t i o n . An d I r e l y o n th e " ma y wi th d r a w" u n d er S ec ti o n B -3. A cli en t i n sist s o n p u rsuin g an o b jecti v e tha t th e law y ers c o n sid e rs r e p u g n a n t o r im p ru d e n t. W e ll, I d o n ' t co n sid e r it re p u g n a n t, Y o u r H o n o r, b u t th e re is n o d o u b t th a t th is i s nota car eful , r eas oned dec i s i on on the partof the cl i ent . I know w hat im p ru d e n t m e a n s b u t I to o k th e lib e rty o f lo o k in g it u p in th e d ictio n a ry to m ake s ur e tha tI w a s n' tge t t i ng ol d a nd ha d f or go t t e n i t , a nd i ts a ys s how i ng good j udgm ent[ s i c] i n handl i ng pr act i cal m att er s . I do notbel i eve the D ef endantunder s t ands the r eper cus s i ons of the i ns truct i ons he' s gi ven t o us and his ref

usal t o h el p u s. A nd t her e' s a ca t ch- al l underthatR ul e 1. 16 f orothergood caus e and I have no f ur therar gum enton thatpoi nt , butI w oul d ask aga i n thatthe C ourtal l ow the c l i e n tt o t e s t i f

y a s t o w h y h e w a n t e d t o t e r m i n a t e u s b e c a u s e th a t 's th e c l i e n t 's d o in g . B u t w e d o jo in in th e m o tio n a s w e a re r e q u ir e d to u n d e r R u le 1 .1 6 . I have no f

urthe ra r gu mentbu tthe s e c on d tw o a l l e ga t i on s a r e i nd e ed p ro b lem a tic, Y o u r H o n o r, to u s g iv in g th e D e fe n d a n t a f a ir trial. T H E C O U R T : T hank you. M r . G ui ce. M R . A L E X A N D E R : Y o u rH o n o r , m a y w e r e s p o n d p r i o rt o M r . G u i c e 's t es t i m ony? T H E C O U R T : Y o u m a y . M R . A L E X A N D E R : Fi r s tof al l , Y ourH onor , the St at e r ece i ved thi s m ot i on on A pr i l the 30th atappr oxi m at el y 2: 30 on Fr i day. W e di d f i r s tr ece i ve a v e rb a l n o tifica tio n a t a b o u t 1 0 o ' c lo c k th a t m o rn in g fro m M s. H a rris. S h e d id c a l l me a n d t e l l me th a ts h e a n t i c i p a t e d f i l i n g a mo t i o n t o wi th d r a w. T oday, M r . K napp, w ho t ol d the C our tthathe j us tbe came a f f i l i at ed w i th the c a se v e ry re c e n tly b u t h e is fa m ili a r w ith th e iss u e o f w ith d ra w in g as c o u n se l, h e sta tes th e re a so n a s th e D e fe n d a n t w a s u n h a p p y w ith th e p e rfo rm a n c e o f h is att orney dur i ng the pr etr i al m oti on s. T hati s notm ent i oned pers e i n the m o tio n th a t w a s file d w ith th e C o u rt.

### 13

W hat i s m enti o n ed p er se as the d i sagreem ents w as that the D efendan thas a pr obl em w i th i m pl i cat i ng M ari o J ones as the pos s i bl e as s ai l antand al s o a p ro b lem w ith th e m e v e n m e n tio n in g M a rio Jo n e s a t all. T h e re a so n th a t is im p o rta n t, Y o u r H o n o r, is th a t th e S tate h a s a q u e stio n a s to w hetherornott hos e thr eat s m ade by M ar i o J ones ar e r el evantatal l
. If the C our tw i l l r eca l l , l as tw eek w e had a m ot i on i n l i m i ne t hatw as broughton by the def ens e and dur i ng thatmot i on i n l i m i ne ourw i tnes s , M i s s Bol l es , t es t i f i ed an d there w as a q u esti o n ask ed o f M iss B o ll es re g ard ing threa ts th at w ere m ad e a t the d ay ca re ce n ter an d th e S tat e o b jected as t o rel ev an ce . T h e C o u rt as ked the def

ense w hatw as the r el evanc e and the def ens e, M s . H arr i s , af

t er att empt i ng t o come up w i th s om e r el evanc e, then s t at ed: I ' l l w i thdr aw that q u esti o n , Y o u r H o n o r. I t ' s the St at e' s as s ert i on, Y ourH onor , thatthe thr eat s made, i f they w er e made, by M r . M ar i o J ones ar e, fi r s tof al l , hear s ay and ther e i s no hear s ay exc ept i on thatw oul d al l ow thati n beca us e he' s nota party t o thi s act i on. S e c o n d ly , it ' s irre lev a n t. T h e o n ly th in g th a t' s re lev a n t is o n th e d a y o f th is c r i me d i d P h e l a n Gu i c e g o t o th e h o me o f th e v i c t i m a n d s h o o th i m. A t t empt i ng t o br i ng i n the name of a thi r d party or show i ng thats om e other per s on thr eat ened the vi ct i m orthe vi ct i m ' s s i s t eri s notr el evantt o thi s cas e. If th e S tate w e re try in g to p ro v e m o tiv e a n d b ro u g h t th a t in , the n it w o u ld b e c o m e re leva n t. B u t as th e C o u rtk n o w s an d the d efe n se k n o w s, the S tate d o e s n o t h a v e to sh o w m o tiv e . T h e o n ly th in g w e h a v e to sh o w is th a t h e d id s hootthe vi ct i m on thatdat e i n the Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof H i nds C ounty. I t ' s ourar gum entthatbas ed upon thei rm ot i on i n w hi ch t he D ef endants ays t ha th e ' s n ota l l owi ng the m t o br i ng u p ort o i mpl i c a t e M a r i o J on e s , i t ' s our as s ert i on thatM r . G ui ce i s f ol l ow i ng the rul es of

evi dence beca us e that i nf or m at i on i s notr el evant . A l l thatw oul d s erve t o do i s t o m uddy the w at er a n d c o n fu se th e ju ry . T h e y h a v e th e d u ty to d e fe n d th e ir c lien t b u t th e ir d e fe n se sh o u ld b e tha t he d id n o t sh o o t him . I d o n ' t k n o w h o w b u t th a t' s th e ir j ob. B utthey ca n' tdo i tby br i ngi ng i rr el evantevi dence orhear s ay evi dence
. T h e re a so n th a t' s im p o rta n t, Y o u r H o n o r, is b e c a u se if in fa c t th e S ta te is c o rre c t o n th is a ss u m p tio n o n th e ev id e n c e ab o u t M a rio Jo n e s a n d w h a t h e d id o r d id n ' t s a y , if

th a t is d e e m e d irre lev a n t, th e n th e e n tire a ss e rtio n in th e ir m ot i on i s m oot . M r . G ui ce i s onl y sayi ng thatt hey ca n' tbr i ng up s tuf f , f or w hat everr eas on he has , buthe' s onl y s ayi ng thatthey ca n' tbr i ng i n evi dence that ' s notr el evantt o t hi s cas e.

### 14

T H E C O U R T : T hank you, couns el
. M r . G ui ce. M R . K N A PP: Y ourH onor , m ay i tpl eas e the C our t . I can addr es s t he i s s ues r ai s ed by M r . A l exande ri f you w oul d l i ke. T H E C O U R T : Y o u w ill b e g iv e n a n o p p o rt u n ity to d o th a t. M r. G u ic e , a m oti on has bee n fi l ed to w ith d raw . T his C ou rtprevi ou sl y ap po i nted M s. H arris t o rep rese n t yo u w h en y o u ad v ised th e C o u rtthat y o u co u ld n o t afford t o hi r e an a t t orney. T he C our tappoi nt ed M s . H arr i s s i nce you ha d a cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o ha ve an att orney i f you c oul d notaf

f or d one. I ti s now the C o u rt ' s u n d erstan d ing that y o u w ish to term inate M s. H arris' serv ices. Is th a t co rre c t. M R . G U IC E : Y es, Y o u r H o n o r. T H E C O U R T : W hy? M R . G U IC E : W e ll, th e m a in re a s o n is a c o n fl ic t o f i n te re s t, Y o u r H o n o r. I have a s ked M s . H arr i s s ever al t i m es t o ra i s e ar gum ent s on m ot i ons t hatI have filed , fo r o n e , the rig h t to a sp e e d y trial w h ich w a s v io late d . I as k e d h e r to raise tha t. S h e d id n o t r aise it
. A n d , Y o u r H o n o r – T H E C O U R T : Y o u ' v e a sk e d fo r a sp e e d y trial. I' v e re v iew e d th a t in th e file a n d y o u 'r e g o i n g t o g e ta s p e e d y t r i a l t o d a y . Y o u 'r e g o i n g t o g e ta t r i a l , s o l e t 's m ove on. M R . G U I C E : O kay, Y our H onor . She di d notr ai s e thatar gum ent . T hen a n o th e r t h in g , I d o n o t f e e l li k e m y la w y e rs h a v e b e e n lo y a l to m e e ith e r. I h a v e b e e n a s k e d b y m y l a w y e r s s e v e r a l t i m e s t o e n t e ra p l e a a n d i f I d i d n 't c o mm i ta s h o o t i n g , s h e wa n t s t o k n o w – T H E C O U R T : W el l , yourl aw yerhas a n obl i gat i on t o di s cus s a ny a nd a l l pl ea of f er s w i th you s o I a s s um e s he w as doi ng that
. She ha s an obl i gat i on t o have thos e di s cus s i ons w i th you. I f thatof f erhas been made – M S. H A R R I S: E xcus e me, Y our H on or. I bel i eve ther e ar e s om e pot ent i al wi tn e s s e s i n th e c o u r tr o o m. T H E C O U R T : O kay. I f a ny w i tnes s es i n thi s c as e ar e i n the courtr oom , you need t o s t ep t o t he w i tnes s r oom . G o ahea d.

### 15

M R . G U I C E : Y ourH onor , m y r eas on f ors ayi ng thi s , l i ke I s ai d, I don' tthi nk sh e ' s b e e n lo y a l to m e . S h e ' s s u p p o se d to b e d e fe n d in g m e o r h e lp in g m e to d e fe n d m y se lf a n d if sh e ' s to h e lp m e d e fe n d m y se lf, w h y is s h e a sk in g m e if w e nee d t o acc epta pl ea oranythi ng l i ke that
. S o I don' tf eel l i ke s he' s bei ng l oyal t o m e. A nd , as I s ai d, the conf l i ctof i nt er es tgoes t o anotherthi ng; notj us tby the m ot i on bei ng f

i l ed f orthe vi ol at i on of

m y r i ght s t o a s peedy tr i al
. T he Lym an (p h o n e tic) m o tio n , o r w h a tev e r it w a s th a t w a s file d , I d o n ' t th in k it sh o u ld h a v e b e e n f

i l e d a n d wh a ts h e wa s e x p l a i n i n g t o me , Yo u rHo n o r , wa s th a tmy co u sin M ario -- to m ak e h im l o o k as an en em y i n th is ca se. N o w , if w e w ere to b rin g u p M a rio in th is c a se , itw o u ld b e to m y b e tterm e n t fo r h im to e x p lain w hy w ou l d the Cour ts ug ge s ttha tI ha d s omethi ng t o d o wi th the c r i me tha t w as comm i t t ed. T H E C O U R T : D o you have a nythi ng el s e? M R . G U IC E : I ju st w a n ted to talk to y o u -- I' m so n e rv o u s -- I ju st w a n ted to t al k t o you, J udge K i dd, aboutm e and my l aw yerhave a conf l i ctof i nt eres t and I do notf

eel s he' s been l oyal t o m e. T H E C O U R T : So w ho do you i nt end t o hi r e t o r epr es entyou ordo you i nt end to rep rese n t yo u rself? M R . G U IC E : Y o u r H o n o r, I d o n o t p lan o n re p re se n tin g m y se lf a n d a t th is t i m e my f

am il y is working to c om e up wi th t he m one y to pr ov ide m e with a la w y e r a n d , if n o t, then I as s um e – T H E C O U R T : Y

ou'v e had

two ye ars to hir e a l

awyerand y ou'v e not

do ne s o a nd y ou'v e f

ile d m oti ons a s king t

his Cour t

to dis m is s f

ors pe e dy tr ial

. So certainl y you 're n ot askin g the Cou rt to delay the trial f

rom today's da te, are y ou, in li

ght of the f ac t that y ou want

y ourda y in cour t

, yo u want

y our sp e e d y tria l. M R . G U IC E : Y

ourH ono r , t he thing a bo ut

the s pe e dy tr ial

, I was not as king f ora s pe e d y tr ia l . I was a s k ingf

o rmy c ha r

g e s to b e di

s m is s e d o n t he gr ounds of

a violati on of

a s peedy tr ial
. T H E C O U R T : W el l , I ' m denyi ng that
. But i n l i ghtof the f actthatyou f

i l ed a m o tio n to d ism iss fo r la c k o f s p e e d y tria l, I a ss u m e d y o u w a n ted a sp e e d y trial, di dn' tyou?

### 16

M R . G U I C E : Y es , I di d. T H E C O U R T : W el l , I ' m goi ng t o gi ve you one t oday. Y ou ' re goi ng t o get yourday i n courtw hi ch you ar e cons t i tut i onal l y af f or ded. Y o u h a v e c e r t a i n r i g h t s f o ry o u t o c o m e t o c o u r ta n d t o d e f e n d y o u r s e l f

a n d I 'm goi ng t o go ahea d and g i ve you yourday i n courtt oday atone. D o you under s t and? M R . G U IC E : Y o u r H o n o r, w ill I h a v e to g o to c o u rt w ith M s. H a rris r epr es ent i ng m e? T H E C O U R T : Y ou w i l l have t o go t o cour tw i th M s . H arr i s r epr es ent i ng you. T he mot i on t o w i thdr aw i s deni ed. M s . H arr i s and M r . K napp w i l l r epr es ent you attr i al beca us e you' r e nott el l i ng thi s C our tthatyou ha ve anyone el s e at one o' cl ock t o r epr es entyou, do you? M R . G U IC E : A t th e tim e , I d o n o t. T H E C O U R T : D o y o u w ish to p roc ee d an d rep rese n t yo u rself? M R . G U I C E : N o. T H E C O U R T : M s . H arr i s and M r . K napp w i l l be youra t t orneys . Letm e hea r the mot i on i n l i m i ne. (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶ 2 0
. W h e n th e re c o rd is re a d in its to tality , it is o b v io u s th a t e v e n a s o f th e d a y o f h is tria l, G u ice d id n o t w a n t a s p e e d y trial, a n d in fa c t, on h is tria l d a te, a c c o rd in g to G u ice , h is fa m ily
w as s t i l l w or ki ng t o s ecur e r et ai ned couns el forhi m . A s G ui ce s o candi dl y s t at ed t o J udge K i dd, G ui ce di d notw anta s peedy tr i al , he w ant ed the cha r ges agai ns thi m “di s m i s s ed on the gr ounds of

a vi ol at i on o f a speedy t r i al
. ” H um an natur e bei ng w hati ti s , anyone, w hen conf r ont ed w i th an unpl eas ants i tuat i on, w oul d hope that“i t ” w oul d s i m pl y go aw ay. M any a def endantchar ged w i th a cri m e h as no doubt , “hoped a gai ns thope” thata cr i m i nal

### 17

i ndi ctm entw oul d s om ehow evapor at e i n thi n ai rs o thathe/ s he w oul d notha ve t o f ace a j ur y. G ui ce w as nots o m uch aggr i eved by the f actthathe ha d be en depr i ved of a tr i al ; i ns t ead, he
w a s m o re a g g rie v e d b y th e fa c t th a t Ju d g e K id d w o u ld n o t d ism iss h is c a se fo r su p p o se d ly vi ol at i ng the s peedy tr i al s t atut e. ¶21. B oth our f

eder al and s t at e cons t i tut i ons pr ovi de that an acc us ed enj oys the r i ght t o a
s peedy tr i al
. The Si xth A m endmentt o the U ni t ed St at es Const i tut i on s t at es , i nt eral i a, that “the ac cus ed s hal l enj oy the r i ghtt o a s peedy a nd publ i c tr i al
. ” U
. S. C ons t . am end. V I . O ur sta te c o n stitu tio n sta tes , inte r a lia, “ th e a c c u se d sh a ll h a v e a rig h t to . . . a s p e e d y a n d p u b lic tr i al
. ” M i s s . C ons t . art . 3, § 26 (1890)
. W hen one r eads thes e f eder al and s t at e cons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i ons , ther e ca n be abs ol ut el y no ques t i on thatthe accus ed i n a cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng has
a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to a sp e e d y trial. H o w e v e r, G u ic e re q u e sts th a t w e re v e rse h is convi ct i on and di s char ge hi m , noto nly f orthe vi ol at i on of

a f eder al ors t at e cons t i t ut i onal rig h t, bu t als o fo r a p e rc e iv e d v io latio n o f o u r sp e e d y trial sta tu te . A gai n, ou r s peed y t r i al st atute, M i ss. C od e A nn . § 9 9-17-1 (R ev. 20 00 ), st at es:

U nl es s good cause be show n, and a c ont i nuance dul y gr ant ed by the court , al l o ff

enses f orw hi ch i ndi ctm ent s ar e pr es ent ed t o the courts hal l be tr i ed no l at erthan tw o hundr ed s eventy ( 270) da ys af t erthe ac cus ed has been arr ai gned. C ontr ary t o ourf

eder al and st at e cons t i tut i ons , w hi ch undeni abl y af f or d an ac cus ed the r i ght t o a s peedy tr i al , w e f

i nd no s uch r i ghtaf

f or ded t o an ac cus ed underours peedy tr i al s t atut e. T he s t atut e s i m pl y s t at es that“ al l of f ens es f orw hi ch i ndi ctm ent s a r e pr es ent ed” s hal l be tr i ed
w i thi n 270 days af

t er“the ac cus ed” i s arr ai gned.

### 18

¶22. I t i s ar gued t hat abs ent a show i ng of good caus e and a cont i nu ance dul y gr ant ed by the tr i al court , the s t atut e pr ovi des f ora pers e di s char ge of

a def endant
. H ow ever , w e have t o as k how a vi ol at i on of a s t atut e coul d br i ng abouts uch a dr as t i c r es ul tw hen a vi ol at i on of
a cons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i on does not . I f an ac cus ed cl ai m s a deni al of a s peedy tr i al underour f eder al cons t i tut i on, the def endant ’ s cas e i s notaut om at i cal l y di s m i s s ed s i m pl y beca us e a
c o n stitu tio n a l v io latio n m a y b e sh o w n . In ste a d , th e trial c o u rt, an d u lti m a tely th e a p p e llate
cou rt , m ustcon du ctthe fam i l i ar bal ancing t estu n d er B arkerv. W ingo , 407 U
. S. 514, 92 S
. C t. 2 1 8 2 , 3 3 L . E d
. 2 d 1 0 1 (19 7 2 ): A ba l anci ng t es tne ces s ar i l y c om pel s c our t s t o a ppr oach s peedy tr i al c as es on an ad hoc ba s i s . W e can do l i t t l e more than i dent i f y s om e of

the f act or s w hi ch court s s houl d as s es s i n det erm i ni ng w hethera part i cul ardef endanthas been d e p r i v e d o f

h i s r i g h t . Th o u g h s o me mi g h te x p r e s s th e m i n d i f f e r e n twa y s , we i dent i f y f ours uch f

act or s : L ength of

del ay, the r eas on f

orthe del ay, the d e fe n d a n t' s a ss e rtio n o f h is rig h t, an d p re ju d ice to th e d e fe n d a n t. 407 U
. S. at530. I n B arkerthe U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tal s o obs erved: A s econd di f

f er ence betw een the r i ghtt o s peedy tr i al and the ac cus ed' s other c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t s i s th a td e p r i v a t i o n o f th e r i g h tm a y w o r k t o th e a c c u s e d 's advant age. D el ay i s nota n unc om m on de f ens e t act i c. A s the t i m e betw een the c o mmi s s i o n o f

th e c r i me a n d tr i a l l e n g th e n s , wi tn e s s e s ma y b e c o me unavai l abl e orthei r m em or i es m ay f ade. I f the w i tnes s es s uppor tthe pr os ecut i on, i t s cas e w i l l be w eake ned, somet i m es ser i ous l y so. A nd i ti s the pr os ecut i on w hi ch ca r r i es the bur den of pr oof
. T hus , unl i ke the r i ghtt o couns el or t he r i ghtt o be f

r ee f r om compel l ed s el f

- i ncr i m i nat i on, depr i vat i on of the r i ghtt o s peedy tr i al does notpers e pr ej udi ce the ac cus ed' s abi l i ty t o def end h im self. I d. at521. ¶23. W e ar e convi nced thatJ us t i ce Roy N obl e Lee goti tr i ghti n hi s di s s enti n Turnerv. S ta te , 383 So. 2d 489 ( M i s s . 1980) , w hen he s t at ed thatthe s t atut e di d notmanda t e “a

### 19

di s char ge of

the ac cus ed unl es s the s t atut e i s cl ear l y vi ol at ed and the ac cus ed has s us t ai ned pr ej udi ce by r eas on ther eof
. ” I d. at491 ( L ee, R . N . , J . , di s s ent i ng) ( emphasi s added)
. J us t i ce L ee w entf

ur therand corr ect l y opi ned: I thi nk thatthe pr ovi s i ons of the Feder al and St at e cons t i tut i ons a nd of Sect i on 99- 17- 1 only r equi r e thatan ac cus ed be di s char ged i n denyi ng hi m a s peedy tr i al w hi ch r es ul t s i n pr ej udi ce and i n the deni al of a f ai rtr i al t o hi m . E xcept f orthos e r eas ons , I do notthi nk an ac cus ed s houl d be di s char ged and I do not thi nk the l egi s l atur e i nt ended otherw i s e. I d. at492. S i xteen yea r s l at er , i n W a lto n v. S ta te , 6 7 8 S o . 2 d 6 4 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ), this C o u rt adopt ed J us t i ce Lee’ s r eas oni ng and, i n the end, concl uded: T h e re is s u b sta n tial e v id e n c e o f th e c o n g e ste d tria l d o c k e t in M a rsh a ll C o u n ty w hi ch w ou l d s uppor tthe tr i al court ’ s “good ca us e” f i ndi ng. W al t on w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o compl ai n aboutnotbei ng t r i ed w i thi n 270 days , beca us e he ne i ther r eques t ed noras s ert ed hi s r i ghtt o a s peedy tr i al or object ed t o a del ay and pr ej udi ce ha s notbeen s how n by W al t on. I d. at650. ¶2 4
. D elvin g a li tt le m o re into th e fa cts o f W alton , the def

endantw as putt o tr i al 370- days af t erarr ai gnm ent , w hi ch w as 100- days beyond the t i m e l i m i tpr ovi ded by the s t atut e; how ever , unt i l the day bef or e tr i al comm ence d, the def endanthad neve rdemanded hi s r i ght to a s p ee d y tr ial u n d er the statu te, n o r m o v ed to d ism iss f o r fail u re to p rov ide a statu tory sp e e d y tr ia l. A lth o u g h w e c ited se v e ra l re a so n s fo r a ffirm in g th e trial c o u rt’s r e fu sa l to di s m i s s underthe s peedy tr i al s t atut e, w e s t at ed, i nt eral i a: W al t on neverra i s ed t he spe edy tr i al i s s ue w i thi n the t i m e f r ame pr es cr i bed by the s t atut e. W al t on neverfi l ed a dem and f ors peedy tr i al unt i l N ovember14, 1989, the day hi s cas e w as s etf ortr i al
. A one - day cont i nuance w as gi ven the St at e t o s ecur e t he att endanc e and t es t i m ony of C har l es M oor e, a mat er i al St at e' s w i tnes s . T r i al w as conduct ed the very nextday, N ovember15, 1989.

### 20

T he very f

i r s tt i m e the St at e w as cal l ed upon t o m ake a s how i ng of "good c a u se " w a s in th e ir re sp o n se to th e M o tio n fo r N e w T ria l. T h e S tate p ro m p tly filed a re p o rt o f th e e n o rm o u s c rim in a l c a se lo a d h a n d led d u rin g th e a p p lica b le t erm s of the M ar s hal l C ounty C i r cui tC our t , and as pr evi ous l y not ed, the tr i al ju d g e a c c e p ted th e c o n g e ste d trial d o c k e t as "g o o d c a u se " s h o w n . S h o u ld W al t on, outon bond thi s ent i r e per i od of t i m e, s i t t i ng i dl y by w i thoutf i l i ng a s peedy tr i al d em and unt i l the day of tr i al , be al l ow ed t o "s andbag" the tr i al court ? W e do notbel i eve thi s i s w hatthe l egi s l atur e cont empl at ed under§ 99- 1 7 -l , n o r w h at th is C o u rtinten d ed eith er. ¶25. T hi s C our ti n S ta te v . D a v is , 382 So. 2d 1095, 1098 ( M i s s . 1980) s t at ed: I n 57 A
. L . R . 2d 303, 306, W ai verorL os s of A ccus ed R i ghtt o Speedy T ri al ( 1958) , appea r s the f

ol l ow i ng: A m a jo rity o f th e ca se s h o ld tha t by failin g to d e m a n d a trial, o r b y failin g to m a k e so m e e ffo rt to p ro c u re a sp e e d ier trial th a n th a t ac tu a lly a c c o rd e d to h im by the s t at e, acc us ed w ai ves hi s r i ghtt o tr i al w i t hin t he per i od pr es cr i bed by the s t atut e, t hi s bei ng part i cul ar l y true w hen ac cus ed i s on bai l
. A nd i thas been expr es s l y poi nt ed outthata fa i l ur e t o demand t r i al w i thi n the per i od pr es cr i bed by the s t atut e w i l l def

eata mot i on f

ordi s char ge even though the s t atut e does notexpr es s l y m ake s uch demand a r equi r ement . A nd i n the abs ence of an af f i r m at i ve r eques tordemand f ortr i al i tw i l l be pr es um ed thatdef endant acqui es ced i n t he del ay. 678 So. 2d at649- 50. ¶26. I n c ons i der i ng w hatw e s ai d i n W alton , w e r eturn t o the r el evantf act s of t oday’ s cas e. O n February 5, 2004, s om e f ourhundr ed s i xty thr ee ( 463) da ys a f t erarr ai gnm ent , and ei ght yei ghtdays be f

or e hi s tr i al c om m ence d, G ui ce f orthe f i r s tt i m e “compl ai ned” abouthi s l ack of a s peedy tr i al w hen he f i l ed hi s p ro se m oti on to di s m i s s f orf ai l ur e t o pr ovi de a s peedy tr ial
. W e m u st r em em b er tha t, as c o rrectl y p o inted o u t b y th e C o u rt of A p p ea ls i n tod ay ’s
cas e, “a de m and f

ordi s m i s s al f

orvi ol at i on of

the r i ghtt o a s peedy tr i al i s notthe equi val ent of a demand f

ora s peedy tr i al
. ” G ui ce , 20 06 M i s s . A pp . LEX I S 72 , *7 , ¶1 3 ( c i t i ng P erry

### Whil e Tayl or , Perry , Wil

ey and Floresal l di sc uss ed the c onstit uti onalspe edy tri al 3 

### is suein we ighing the Barker fa ct ors , weconc ludethat “ thedem and f or di sm is sa l for

not providing a

spe edy tri alvs. thedem and f or a spe edy tri al ” di stinc ti on is appl ic abl e t o our dis cus si on of the s tatut ory s pee dy tria l i ss ue. In other words, whethe r thedisc uss ion of an is sueconce rning denia l of a spe edy tria l is focus ed on a constit uti onalviolati on or a

st at utor y vio lation , we se e a d ifference ina defen dant deman din g a sp eedytrial as op po sed to deman din g a d ismissal for failure to p rov ide a sp eedytrial. 21 v. S ta te , 6 3 7 S o .2 d 8 7 1 , 8 7 5 (M iss . 1 9 9 4 )). W h ile w e re a d ily a c k n o w led g e th a t d e fe n d a n ts h a v e n o o b lig a tio n to p u t th e m se lv e s to tri a l, a n d th a t th e S tate n o d o u b t is sh o u ld e re d w ith th e r e s p o n s i b i l i ty o f

b r i n g i n g d e f

e n d a n t s t o tr i a l a f

t e ri n d i c t me n t , a d e f

e n d a n td o e s h a v e s o me
re s p o n s ib ility in a s s e rt in g th e ri g h t to a s p e e d y tr ia l. T a y lo r v . S ta te , 672 So. 2d 1246, 1261 ( M i s s . 1996) ( ci t i ng W

iley v. S ta te , 5 8 2 S o .2 d 1 0 0 8 , 1 0 1 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 1 ); Flo re s v . S ta te , 574 S o . 2 d 1 3 1 4 , 1 3 2 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 )). 3 ¶27. A nal ogous t o t oday’ s cas e i s thi s C our t ’ s deci s i on i n J o n e s v . S ta te , 776 So. 2d 643 ( M i s s . 2000)
. I n Jones , the d e fe n d a n t, i n h is a p p e llate b rie f, se t o u t a tim e li n e fro m th e d a te of arr ai gnm entunt i l hi s tr i al dat e, and as s ert ed thatther e w as a pass age of t i m e of ni ne hundr ed s eventy- f

i ve ( 975) days , w i th 709 days bei ng cl as s i f i ed by the def

endantas the t ot al days of “non- def

ens e del ay. ” I

d. a t649. H ow ever , the onl y i nf or m at i on a ctual l y reveal ed i n the r ecor d ( as oppos ed t o the appe l l at e br i ef s ) , w as cert ai n t ri al cour tcl erk dockets heet in fo rm a tio n th a t c o n tin u a n c e s w e re g ra n te d o n c e rt a in d a te s . I d. W e not ed thatthi s gener al i nf or m at i on on the cl erk’ s dockets heetdi d notr evea l the l ength of the cont i nuance s orw ho
r eques t ed the cont i nuance s , nordi d the docke ts heetre veal any m ot i ons forcont i nuance or
o rd e rs o f c o n tin u a n c e . I d. W i th t hi s i n m i nd, w e s t at ed:

### 22

T h is C o u rth as re p ea tedly h eld th at “ [w e] w il l no t co n side r m att ers w h ich a re out s i de the r ecor d and m us tconf i ne [ our s el ves ] t o w hatactual l y does appear i n the r ecord. " Me din a v. S ta te , 688 So. 2d 727, 732 ( M i ss. 1996) ( ci t i ng R o b in so n v. S ta te , 662 So. 2d 1100, 1104 ( M i s s . 1995)
. "W e ca n notdeci de an i s s ue bas ed on as s ert i ons i n t he bri ef s al one; ra ther , i s s ues m us tbe pr oven by the record. " Me din a v. S ta te , 688 So. 2d at732. Fur therm or e, J ones has fa ile d to s h o w a n y p re

ju d ic e w h ic h m ig h t h a v e re s u lte d f r o m t h e d e la y . See W a lto n v. S ta te , 678 S o. 2d 645, 650 ( M i s s . 1996). W i thoutsuch i nf or m at i on, w e ar e u nabl e t o f

i nd a cons t i tut i onal ors t atut ory vi ol at i on of the r i ghtt o a s peedy tr i al
. T her ef

or e, w e dec l i ne t o addr es s thi s i s s ue. Jones , 776 So. 2d at649. ¶28. W e not e thati n Jones , w e once agai n s t at ed, cons i s t entw i th W alton , thati n r ai s i ng sta tu to ry sp e e d y trial iss u e s, d e fe n d a n ts m u st a ttem p t to s h o w a n y re su lti n g p re ju d ice d u e to the del ay i n tr i al
. H ow ever , on t he otherhand, contr ary t o Jones , w e have pr ocee ded t oday to a d d re ss th e m e rits o f th is iss u e in o rd e r to m a k e it a b u n d a n tly c lea r th a t w h ile th e S tate sh o u ld e rs th e b u rd e n o f p u tti n g d e fe n d a n ts to trial, o n th e o th e r h a n d , d e fe n d a n ts, w h ile endow ed w i th num er ous cons t i tut i onal and st at utory r i ght s , cannoti n cert ai n s i tuat i ons
s upi nel y w ai tt o be i m pal ed w i th a l l of thes e r i ght s . A s w e s t at ed i n W alton , a def

endantm ay ef f ect i vel y w ai ve hi s ri ghtt o com pl ai n of notbei ng t r i ed w i thi n t he 270- day per i od s etout i n M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 17- 1, w hen the def endantdoes notr eques toras s erthi s r i ghtt o a
s peedy tr i al orobj ectt o a del ay, es peci al l y w hen t he def endantf ai l s t o s how any pr ej udi ce in th e fa ilu re to b e tr ie d w ith in th e s ta tu to ry 2 7 0 -d a y p e ri o d
. W alton , 6 7 8 So
. 2 d a t6 5 0
. To thi s day, G ui ce has yett o ass erthi s ri ghtt o a spee dy t r i al , and i tw as notunt i l 463 days af t er hi s arr ai gnm entt hatG ui ce, fort he f i r s tt i m e vi a a m ot i on t o di s m i s s , compl ai ned of notbei ng p u t to trial tim e ly . In fa c t, ev e n o n h is tria l d a te, w h ich w a s 5 5 1 d a y s a fte r h is a rra ig n m e n t,

### 23

Gu i c e t o l d J u d g e Ki d d th a th e wa s n o ta s k i n g f o ra s p e e d y tr i a l , b u th e “ wa s a s k i n g f o rmy
c h a rg e s to b e d is m is s e d o n th e g ro u n d s o f a v io la tio n o f a s p e e d y tr ia l.” ¶ 2 9
. I f we we r e t o d i s mi s s th e i n d i c t me n t a g a i n s t Gu i c e o n th e r e c o r d i n t o d a y ’ s c a s e , we
w ou l d, i n o ne fel l sw oo p, o verrule a l i ne of cases by d ecl ari ng that G uice, a m an w ho m ost
as s ur edl y di d notw anta s peedy tr i al , has the i nal i enabl e r i gh tto hav e hi s cas e di s m i s s ed b e c a u se th e S tate , n o r th e trial c o u rt , e x p lain e d th e re a so n fo r th e d e lay in h is b e in g p u t to trial. ¶3 0
. W e en co u rag e o u r tr ial jud g es, w h en co n fron ted w ith co n sti tuti o n al an d /or statu tory
s peedy tr i al i s s ues , t o m ake a det ai l ed r ecor d on t he proced ural hi s t ory of the ca s e under di s cus s i on, s uch as dat e of arr es t , dat e of

arr ai gnm ent , eventual tr i al dat e, r eas ons f ordel ay,
an d the like. T h is i s n o d o u b t of g rea t ben efitto the ap p ell ate c o u rt , w h ethe r i t be th e C o u rt of A ppeal s or the Supre m e C our t . W i thoutquest i on, i tw oul d have hel ped i n thi s cas e. For the r eas ons al r eady s t at ed, w e s ee no r eas on t o engage i n s pecul at i on as t o w hatcaus ed the d e lay s in to d a y ’s c a se , b u t a f a ir re a d in g o f th e re c o rd in th is c a se c e rta in ly c re a tes fa irly stro n g in fe re n c e s th a t at le a st p a rt o f th e d e lay w a s c a u se d b y G u ice ’s o b stin a te r e fu sa l to cooper at e w i th hi s court - appoi nt ed att orneys . A s one o f G uice’ s att orneys s t at ed t o J udge K i dd , he h ad d eal tw i th un hap py cli ents (defendan t s) b efor e, “bu tI’ ve n ever had them j ust compl et el y r ef

us e t o t al k t o m e. U s ual l y t hey t al k m y earoff
. ” I n the end, G ui ce w oul d not even t al k t o hi s l aw yer s . O ne pr obl em w as that , r i ght l y orw r ongl y, G ui ce’ s court - appoi nt ed
co u nsel w anted t o d rag G uice’ s cousi n, M ari o Jon es, i nto the case in an eff ortt o d i v ert att en ti o n aw ay from G u ice a n d o n Jo n es. In o ther w o rds, d efe n se co u n sel w an ted to asse rt

### 24

that J on es w as the assai l ant and n ot G uice. H ow ever, G uice di d n ot agr ee w i th the defense th e o ry , p lu s G u ice fe lt h is c o u rt-a p p o in ted a tto rn e y s w e re s e lli n g h im o u t b y talk in g to h im
a b o u t a p o ss ib le p lea a g re e m e n t. A g a in , ev e n a s la te a s th e d a y o f tria l, G u ice u n e q u iv o c a lly t ol d J udge K i dd thathe w as nota s ki ng f ora s peedy tr i al and thathi s f ami l y w as “w or ki ng to c o m e u p w ith th e m o n e y to p ro v id e m e w ith a la w y e r.” ¶ 3 1
. W h ile w e fin d th a t th e re w a s a v io latio n o f th e sp e e d y trial sta tu te, th e trial c o u rt d id
n o t err i n refu sing to dism iss G u ice’s ind ictm en t f o r th is st atuto ry v iolati o n , n o r did the C o u rt of A ppeal s comm i terr ori n af f i r m i ng the tr i al courton thi s i s s ue. CO NC L US I ON ¶32. T hus , f

or the r eas ons s t at ed, w e af f i r m the j udgm ent s of the C our t of A ppeal s and the tr ia l c o u rt . ¶ 3 3
. THE J UDGM EN T OF THE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S AF F I RMED . CONVI CT I ON OF AG GR AV AT E D AS S AUL T W I TH A W EA P ON AND S EN TE NCE OF TW ENTY ( 2 0 ) YEARS, AS AN HABI TUAL O FF ENDER, W I THO UT PAROLE, P ROBA TI ON , REDUC TI ON OR S USP EN S I ON OF S EN TE NCE , I N T HE CU S TODY OF THE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P ART M EN T OF CORRE CT I ONS , AF F I RM ED . S M I T H , C .J ., W A L L E R A N D C O B B , P .J J ., E A S L E Y A N D R A N D O L P H , J J ., CO NCU R. DI AZ , J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH S EPARATE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED B Y G R A V E S A N D D I C K I N S O N , J J . DI AZ , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶3 4. I a m c om pel l ed t o di s s entbe caus e t he m aj ori t y ignores t he unambi guous pr onouncementof

ourLegi s l atur e, e nt angl es s t at e and f eder al l aw , a nd i gnor es the bi ndi ng pr ece dentof

the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t . T hi s has r es ul t ed i n a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce f ornotonl y Phel an Ter r el l G ui ce, b ut al l M i s s i s s i ppi ans . T hi s cas e pr es ent s a ques t i on

### 25

w hi ch w e h a ve a dd r e s s e d many t i mes b e f or e : a twhatp oi nti s the s t a tut e p r ov i di ng t hat
c rim in a l d e fe n d a n ts b e tried w ith in 2 7 0 d a y s a fte r a rra ig n m e n t v io late d ? B e c a u se w e sh o u ld
r eturn t o a f

ai thf ul i nt erpr et at i on of

the s t atut e, a nd beca us e the r i ghtt o a s peedy tr i al cannot b e w a iv e d th ro u g h in a c tio n , th e ju d g m e n ts o f th e c irc u it co u rt a n d th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls
s houl d be r ever s ed. ¶3 5 . A lth o u g h the m ajority sp en d s a g rea t d ea l o f ti m e re c iti n g th e fa cts u n d erlying M r. G ui ce’ s arr es tand ul t i m at e co nv i ct i on, the i s s ue of compl i ance w i th the 270- day, leg isla tiv e ly -m a n d a ted tim e fra m e is d isp o sitiv e ; th e re lev a n t fa c ts a re o n ly th o se re latin g to his un l aw ful and un con st i tuti on al dep ri vati on of a speedy tri al
. B efo re a n al yzing t he case athand, a r evi ew of

the r i ghtt o a spee dy t r i al i s neces s ary t o cl ar i f y the maj or i ty’ s conf

us i on
o f th e l a w. I. T h e S p e e d y T r ia l. ¶36. I n M i s s i s s i ppi , the r i ghtt o a s peedy tr i al i s guar ant eed unde rthe author i ty of bot h the fe d e ra l an d sta te c o n stitu tio n s. T h e U n ited S tate s C o n stitu tio n m a n d a te s th a t “ [i] n a ll
c ri m in a l p ro s e c u tio n s , th e a c c u s e d s h a ll e n jo y t h e r ig h t to a s p e e d y a n d p u b lic tr ia l . . . .” U .S . C o n st. a m e n d . V I. T h e M iss iss ip p i C o n stitu tio n sim ilarly re q u ire s th a t “[i]n a ll pr os ecut i ons by i ndi ctm entor i nf or m at i on, a spee dy and publ i c t r i al by an i m part i al j ur y of th e c o u n ty w h e re th e o ffe n se w a s c o m m itt e d ” b e g ra n ted a c rim in a l d e fe n d a n t. M iss . C o n st. of 1890, A r t . 3, § 26.

### 26

T h e C o n sti tu ti o n a l R igh t to a S p ee d y T rial u n d er th e S ixth A m en d m en t. ¶37. I n Klop

f e rv. N or th Car ol

ina , the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tpr onounced the r i ght to a sp e e d y trial “ fu n d a m e n tal,” a n d th a t ita p p lie d to th e sta tes v ia th e F o u rte e n th A m endment
. 386 U
. S. 213, 222, 87 S. C t . 988, 18 L . E d. 2d 1 ( 1967)
. T he C our ttr ace d t he
or i gi n of a s peedy tr i al t o the A s s i ze of C l ar endon, an ac tcr af t ed duri ng the rul e of

K i ng H enry I I i n 1166, and t o M agna Car t a, thatE ngl i s h documentof f r eedoms a dopt ed i n 1215. I d . a t 2 2 3 -2 4
. ¶38. Y etw hatexact l y const i tut ed a “s peedy” t r i al undert he f eder al const i tut i on w as not
co n cre tel y d efine d u n ti l a few y ea rs l ater, in the ca se o f B arkerv. W ingo , 407 U
. S. 514, 92 S. C t . 218 2, 3 3 L . E d. 2 d 101 ( 1972)
. B eca us e the U
. S. C ons t i tut i on does notdef i ne the t erm , the C our tf

ound the r i ghtdi f

f i cul tt o qua nt i f

y: “the r i ghtt o s peedy tr i al i s a more vague
conce ptthan otherpr ocedur al r i ght s ” beca us e “[ i ] ti s , f orexampl e, i m pos s i bl e t o det erm i ne
w i th pr eci s i on w hen the r i ghthas been de ni ed. ” I d . at521. ¶39
. U l t i m at el y the C ou rtcho se a bal an cing test w here i t“i den t i f[ i ed] four .
. . fact ors: L ength of

del ay, the r eas on f

orthe del ay, the def

endant ’ s as s ert i on of

hi s r i ght , and pr ej udi ce t o the def endant
. ” I

d . at530. T hi s l andmar k t es t , w i th s om e el abor at i on, i s s t i l l ut i l i zed t oday in a n a ly z in g c o n s titu tio n a l s p e e d y tr ia l v io la tio n s . See D og ge tt v. U nite d States , 50 5 U. S. 6 4 7 , 65 1, 112 S. C t . 268 6, 120 L . E d. 2d 52 0 (1992 ) (the “four separat e enqu i ri es” are “w hetherdel ay bef

or e tr i al w as uncomm onl y l ong, w hetherthe governm entorthe cr i m i nal d e fe n d a n t is m o re to b lam e fo r th a t d e lay , w h e th e r, in d u e c o u rse , the d e fe n d a n t as se rte d h is ri g h t t o a sp ee d y tr ial , an d w h ethe r he su ffered p rejud ice a s the d elay ' s resu lt ”).

### 27

¶40. W hi l e under s t andi ng that“ s uch a rul i ng w oul d ha ve the vi r tue of cl ar i f yi ng w hen the
r i ghti s i nf

r i nged and of

s i m pl i f yi ng co urt s’ appl i cat i on of i t , ” the B arker C o u rt e x p licitly decl i ned t o adopta “f

i xed poi nt ” atw hi ch a spe edy t r i al w oul d be vi ol at ed. 407 U
. S. at523. T he C our tdi d not e that“s om e l egi s l atur es have e nact ed l aw s , and some court s have a dopt ed pr ocedur al rul es w hi ch more narr ow l y def i ne the r i ght
. ” I

d . In h o ld in g it c o u ld n o t craft
su c h a fix e d p o in t, th e C o u rt sta ted th a t: [ A do pt i ng a f

i xed poi nt ] w oul d r equi r e thi s C our tt o engage i n l egi s l at i ve or ru lem a k in g a c tiv ity , rath e r th a n in th e ad ju d ica tiv e p ro c e ss to w h ich w e sh o u ld conf i ne ouref

f or t s . W e do notes t abl i s h pr ocedur al rul es f orthe St at es , exce pt w hen mandat ed by the C ons t i tut i on. W e f i nd no co nst i tut i onal bas i s f or hol di ng thatthe s peedy tr i al ri ghtcan be quant i f i ed i nt o a spec i f

i ed numberof days orm onths
. The St at es , of c our s e, a r e f

r ee t o pr es cr i be a r eas onabl e per i od cons i s t entw i th const i tut i onal st andar ds , butour appr oach m us tbe l es s pr eci s e. I d . a t 5 2 3
. ¶41. T his i nvi t at i on w as he eded by many s t at es a s w el l a s the U nit ed S t at es C on gress , w hi ch adopt ed the Feder al Speedy Tri al A ctof 1974. T he Speedy Tr i al A ctco ntai ns a l engthy l i s tof

deadl i nes and d et ai l s i n or dert o cr eat e a pr eci s e s cheme noti nher enti n t he
v a g u e n e s s o f t h e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. See 18 U
. S. C
. S. § 3162. C ongr es s expl ai ned thatt he A c t w a s “ [t] o a ss ist in re d u c in g c rim e a n d th e d a n g e r o f re c id iv ism b y re q u irin g sp e e d y trials and by s tr engtheni ng the s upervi si on o verper s ons r el eas ed pendi ng tr i al , and f orot her purpos es . ” 93 P. L . 619. T he St at e R i ght f

rom 1817 t o 1975. ¶42. Fr om i t s bi r th, M i s s i s s i ppi guar ant eed s peedy tr i al s f ori t s ci t i zens ; the l anguage i n our
c o n s titu tio n to d a y h a s b a re ly c h a n g e d s in c e J u ly 1 7 , 1 8 1 7 , w h e n w e b e c a m e a s ta te . See

### 28

M i s s . C ons t . of

1817, A r t . I , § 10 ( “i n al l pros ecut i ons by i ndi ctm entori nf or m at i on, a s peedy p u b lic tria l, by a n im p a rtial ju ry o f th e c o u n ty ” ); M iss . C o n st. o f 1 8 3 2 , A rt. I, § 1 0 (“ in a ll pr os ecut i ons , by i ndi ctm entori nf or m at i on, a s peedy a nd publ i c tr i al by a n i m part i al j ur y of th e c o u n ty w h e re th e o ffe n c e w a s c o m m itt e d ” ); M iss . C o n st. o f 1 8 6 8 , A rt. I, § 7 (“ in a ll pr os ecut i ons by i ndi ctm entori nf or m at i on, a s peedy and publ i c tr i al by an i m part i al j ur y of th e c o u n ty w h e re th e o ff e n s e w a s c o m m itte d ” ). ¶ 4 3
. In 1 8 5 7 o u r L e g isla tu re fi rs t c o d if ie d a s tatu to ry d e fin iti o n o f “ sp e e d y trial” : “ A ll in d ic tm e n ts s h a ll b e tr ia b le a t t h e f ir s t t e rm , u n le s s g o o d c a u s e b e s h o w n fo r a c o n tin u a n c e .” M i s s . C ode of

1857, Sect i on L I X , A r t . 285. T hatl anguage w as m odi f i ed i n 1892 t o r ead “s hal l be tr i ed, ” and thi s re m ai ned t he l aw unt i l 1976. M i s s . C ode of 1892, § 1421. T hi s w as
a s tr i cts t andar d be caus e t erm s of c our tw er e governed by s t atut e, and s o eac h j udi ci al di s tr i ct h ad it s o w n ti m e p eriod in w h ich to p rov ide a sp ee d y tr ial
. T h is pro v ided a fl ex ible stan d ard
acc or di ng t o popul at i on. ¶4 4. For exampl e , i n 19 42 the r e wer e s i x t e r ms of c ou r ti n the f

i r s tdi s t r i ctof H i nds C ounty, eac h l as t i ng 3 6 days , s t art i ng on the f i r s tM ondays of

J anuary, M ar ch, M ay, J ul y, S e p tem b e r, an d N o v e m b e r. 1 9 4 2 M iss . L a w s, § 1 4 0 1 . S o if a d e fe n d a n t w a s a rre ste d in J une, the “f

i r s tt erm ” f

ol l ow i ng i s the J ul y t erm of 36 day s. A s s um i ng the per s on w as
arr es t ed on J une 1, the St at e w as r es pons i bl e f ortryi ng thatper s on w i thi n 66 days
. Pr ovi ded, of cour s e, thatther e w as no cont i nuance , thatda t e w as r oughl y the m axi m um i n thatpartof the s t at e. ¶45
. T erm s o f courtp er j ud i ci al d i stri ctv ari ed. W hil e the fi rs tjudi ci al d i stri cto f H i nd s,

### 29

a l ar ge di s tr i cti n gener al and al s o t he se atof s t at e governm ent , had s i x t erm s of courtf or36 days , G r enada C ount y onl y had tw o: “O n the f ou rth M onday of

J anuary and J ul y, tw el ve d a y s [e a c h ]. ” 1 9 4 2 M iss
. L a w s, § 1 3 9 9
. T h o se term s w e re th e n ro u g h ly th e e n d o f th e m o n th of J anuary and J ul y. A ccor di ngl y, i n thatcounty, a s peedy t r i al f ora cr i m i nal def

endant
m i gh tbe requ i red w i thin r ou gh l y 1 70 day s. ¶46. O ne of

t he conce r ns of cr i m i nal def endant s i n t he M i s s i s s i ppi of t i m es pastw as not the d ep ri v ati o n o f a sp ee d y tr ial , b u t i n rec eivin g too sp ee d y o f a tr ial
. A s the S u p rem e C o u rt not ed i n B arker , “d ep ri v ati o n o f th e righ t [ to a s p e e d y tr ial ] m ay w o rk to the a cc u sed ’s adv antage. ” 40 7 U . S
. at52 1. T he reas on gi ven that “[ d] el ay i s no tan un com m on defense t act i c” bec ause “[ a] s the ti m e betw een the com m i ssi on of the cri m e and tri al lengt hen s,
w i tnes s es m ay bec om e unava i l abl e orthei rm emori es m ay f ade, ” and “[i ] f

the w i tnes s es
s uppor tthe pr os ecut i on, i t s cas e w i l l be w eakene d, s om et i m es s er i ous l y s o. ” I d . O f cour s e, del ay ca n be a tw o- edged s w or d, as t hos e w i tnes s es t es t i f yi ng f orthe def ens e ar e al s o s ubj ect to u n a v a ila b ility o r a g ra d u a l f a d in g o f m e m o ry . See ge ner al l y D og g e tt , 505 U . S. at656 ( “though t i m e ca n t i l tthe ca s e aga i ns tei thers i de .
. . one cannotge ner al l y be s ur e w hi ch of them ith as p rejud iced m o re se v ere ly”) (intern al cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶4 7 . In th e c ase o f R obinson v. State w e ex am ined a c ase that d em o n str ated the c o n ce rn
overa very s peedy tr i al
. T he def endantw as acc us ed of

a r ape thatoccurr ed on Satur day, J ul y 10, 1954. 223 M i s s . 70, 77, 77 So
. 2 d 26 5, 267 ( 1955)
. H e w as arr es t ed on Sunday, Ju ly 1 1 ; i n d ict ed o n M o n d ay ; July 1 2 ; an d fi led a m o ti o n o n T u esd ay , Ju ly 1 3 , for a
c o n tin u a n c e o f th e tri a l. I d . at77, 77 So. 2d at267. T he mot i on w as overrul ed, and the

### Opini ons on ultra- spe edy tri al s pa ss ed int o the culturallexi con, parti cul arly in one 4 

### son g lamentingbarelya weekbetw een arrest an d sentencin g. See Johnny Ca sh, “I Got Stripe s, ” on At Fol

som Pris on (Columbi a Re cords 1968)
. 30 d e fe n d a n t tr ie d th a t F ri d a y , J u ly 1 6 , w h e re h e w a s s e n te n c e d to d e a th
. I d . Onl y s i x days
e la p s e d fr o m th e a tta c k to th e s e n te n c in g . ¶48. O n appea l , hi s couns el ar gued thatthe cont i nuance shoul d have bee n gr ant ed i n or der t o al l ow m or e t i m e f

orthe pr epar at i on of

the def ens e; w e conc l uded thatthe t r i al w as pr oper l y hel d i n acc or dance w i th ours peedy tr i al l aw s , i
. e. w i thi n the t erm of court , and that th e c o n tin u a n c e h a d b e e n im p ro p e rl y re q u e s te d
. I d . at79, 77 So. 2d a t268. A ccor di ngl y,
w e a ff ir m e d th e p e n a lty o f d e a th
. I d . at82, 77 So. 2d at269. ¶4 9. E ar l i er t ha t ye a r w e ha d a dd r e s s e d c on c e rns ov e r a tr i a l tha t w a s he l d 14 da ys a f t er i ndi ctm enta nd di s m i s s ed them, c i t i ng mul t i pl e otherj ur i s di ct i ons thatha d he l d tr i al s of even sh o rte r tim e p e rio d s— in c lu d in g trials th a t w e re h e ld th re e , tw o , an d e v e n o n e d a y a fte r a rre st. G a lleg o v. S ta te , 222 M i s s . 719, 737- 38, 77 So. 2d 321, 329- 30 ( 1955) ( exami ni ng, among othercases Co m m o n w e a lth v. D o n n e lly , 8 6 P a. S u p er. 42 7 , 42 8 (Pa
. S u p er. C t. 1 9 2 5 ), w h ere a def endantw as tr i ed and c onvi ct ed of a c r i m e comm i t t ed the day bef or e)
. T he ul tr a- s peedy tr i al s i n Robins on and G al lego w er e s i m pl y a partof the cul tur e atthatt i m e. 4 T h e S tat e R i gh t i n M od ern T i m es. ¶50. I n 1976 t he L egi s l atur e al t er ed t he st atut ory ri ghtt o a spee dy tr i al cons i der abl y. G one
w er e f l uctuat i ng da t es ba s ed upon t erm s of c our t , r epl ace d i ns t ead by a un i for m st andar d: “U nl es s good caus e be s how n, a nd a c ont i nuance dul y gr ant ed by the court , al l of f ens es f or

### The l at es t avai la bledat a f rom theBure au of

Jus ti ceStati stic s, a part

of the Uni te d 5 

### State s Departm ent

of Justic e, indi cates th at 270 days is am pletimebetwee n timeof arrai gnme nt and se nte ncing for fe loni es . In a s urve y com pil ing data

from a llst at e c ourts, the med ian time b etweenarrest andsenten cing for perso ns accusedo f a felony is 15 3 d ays. Felony Sentenc esin St

ateCourt s, 2000 , NCJ198821, at 9 t bl. 11, June 2003. For vi ole nt offen ses that numb er rises to 1 86 day s. Id. In the c as e of aggravate d as sa

ult , the c ri mefor whic h Mr. Guic e was convic te d, themedi an numbe r of days betwee n ar

re st and c onvic ti on is 16 3 d ays. Id. Eig hty -four percent of all o ffenses w ere disp osedof w ithinon e year. Id. Thes e num

ber s aresi mi lar to theDepartm ent of Justic e’ s st

udy of data

taken f rom 75 large urbancounties in the Un ited States. In th at repo rt, it was sh own th at the med ian time for a llof fe nse s betwee n arr es t to adj udic ation was 92 days
. Felo ny Defe ndantsin Lar ge Urban Counties, 2000 , NCJ202021, at 23 tbl . 22, Dec em ber 2003. For vi ole nt of

fe nse s that number rose to 12 8 day s, an d for assault th e time was 1 20 day s. Id. Eighty-s ix pe rc ent of all offen ses were d ispo sed o f with in o ne y ear. Id. 31 w h ich in d ictm e n ts a re p re se n ted to th e c o u rt sh a ll b e tri e d n o late r th a n tw o h u n d re d se v e n ty (27 0 ) da y s after th e a cc u sed h as b ee n arraign ed
. ” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -17 -1 (R ev . 2 0 0 0 ). M ad e e ffe cti v e o n Ju ly 1 , 1 9 7 6 , the s tatu te set ou t a cry stal -clear ru le: d efe n d an ts w ere
r equi r ed t o be t r i ed w i th 270 days af t erarr ai gnm entunl es s a cont i nuance bas ed upon good
c a u se w a s g ra n ted b y th e trial c o u rt. 5 ¶51. W e f

i r s te xami ned the s t atut e r oughl y tw o year s l at er , i n P a y n e v. S ta te , 363 So. 2d 278 ( M i s s . 1978)
. I n exami ni ng the l aw , w e pr onounced that“[ t ] hi s s t atut e is pl ai n and unambi guous . ” I

d . at279. T he i ndi ctm enti n thatcas e w as ent er ed on A ugus t16, 1976, and th e d e fe n d a n t w a s n o t tr ie d u n til A u g u s t 3 1 , 1 9 7 7

— w e ll o v e r a y e a r l a te r. I d . a t 2 7 8
. ¶52. B eca us e “[ i ] t[ w as ] r eadi l y s een thatt he acc us ed w as tr i ed and c onvi ct ed more t han 270 days af

t erhi s arr ai gnm entand pl ea of notgui l ty, ” w e hel d that“[ t ] he onl y ques t i on
r emai ns i s w hetherornotthe del ay comes w i thin the f r amew or k of

the exc ept i ons i n the
s t atut e. ” I

d . at279. W hi l e a con t i nu ance had bee n s oughtand gr ant ed on beha l f of the

### 32

def endant , ther e w as no otherevi dence i n t he r ecor d of a cont i nuance ; t her ef or e, a unani m ous C o u rt re v e rs e d th e c o n v ic tio n a n d o rd e re d th e d e fe n d a n t r e le a s e d
. I d. ¶53. T he next year w e agai n addr es s ed the s t atut e, thi s t i m e i n a cas e w her e w e f ound t hat

“ [ a ] l th o u g h d e f

e n d a n twa s t r i e d 5 8 4 d a y s a f t e rh i s a rr a i g n me n t , h e wa s tr i e d wi th i n th e t i me f i xed by sec t i on 99-17- 1 becaus e good re as on w as show n fort he del ay. ” D u rh a m v. S ta te , 377 S o. 2d 909, 910 ( M i s s . 1979). W e l ooked cl os el y atthe t erm s of courti n L eake C ounty, f i ndi ng thatone w as dev oted t o ci vi l cas es , i n anothercouns el f orthe def

endantw as not p re se n t, i n y e t an o th e r th e d e fe n d a n t req u e ste d a c o n tin u a n c e fo r trial p re p a ra tio n , an d las t,
a m a te ri a l w itn e s s w a s a b s e n t in a n o th e r t e rm . I d . a t9 1 0
. E x a mi n i n g th e s e r e a s o n s we
u n a n im o u sly fo u n d “ g o o d c a u se w a s sh o w n fo r th e d e lay in th e tria l o f th e d e fe n d a n t an d h is
cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o a s peedy tr i al w as notvi ol at ed. ” I d . ¶5 4
. O u r un an im ity in interp retati o n d id n o t l ast. T h e c ase o f Turnerv. State g a rn e r e d t wo
s pi r i t ed di s s ent s thatr ef us ed t o j oi n the m aj or i ty i n r el eas i ng a def endanttr i ed l ong af

t ert he 270 days
. 383 So. 2d 489 ( M i s s . 1980)
. I n di s s ent , Just i ce R oy N obl e Lee, j oi ned by J us t i ces W al kerand B ow l i ng, ar gued thathe w oul d “onl y requi re t hatan ac cus ed be d isc h a rg e d in d e n y in g h im a sp e e d y tri a l w h ich re su lts in p re ju d ice a n d in th e d e n ial o f a fa ir tr i al t o hi m . ” I

d . at492 ( L ee, J . , d i ssent i ng)
. W hi l e the Legi s l atur e demanded thata tr i al “s hal l ” be w i thi n 270 days , i tdi d nots peci f y the r emedy f

orthe St at e’ s f

ai l ur e t o compl y. Ju stic e L e e re a so n e d th a t “if th e leg isla tu re h a d in ten d e d a d isc h a rg e f o r fa ilu re to c o m p ly
w i th the s t atut e, t hati nt entw oul d have bee n expr es s ed i n the pr es ents t atut e. ” I d . (L e e , J ., d is s e n tin g ).

### 33

¶55. A m er e s even da ys af t erw e del i ver ed the opi ni on i n Turner , w e a d d re ss e d th e sta tu te agai n i n S ta te v . D a v is , 3 82 So
. 2 d 10 95 ( M i s s . 1 98 0)
. A tthi s p oi nto ura na l ys i s o f t he
s t atut ory r i ghtu nderM i s s i s s i ppi l aw beca m e hopel es s l y t angl ed w i th the f eder al
c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t. D e s p ite th e fa c t th a t th e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt’s o p in io n in B arker r es t ed s quar el y on i nt erpr et i ng t he C ons t i tut i on, w hi ch had no f i xed poi ntf

ors peedy trial a n a ly sis , w e im p o rte d its b a lan c in g tes t an d a p p lied it t o th e sta tu te w e fo rm e rly h e ld
w as “pl ai n and unambi guous . ” I d . a t 1 0 9 7 -9 8
. ¶56. A f

t er that poi nt var i ous i nt erpr et at i ons of the s t atut e w oul d ar i s e, at t i m es pr ovoki ng i ncr easi ngl y compl ex and s pi r i t ed deba t es betw een the maj or i ty opi ni on and di s s ent i ng justi ce s, su ch as in the n o table c ase o f W in de r v . S ta te , 640 So. 2d 893 ( M i s s . 1994) , w hi ch gen erat ed lengt hy dis sent s by Just i ces Su l l i van and B ank s. The M ode r n I nt e r pr e t at i on. ¶57 . T he cri t i cal turni ng pointi n ou r m od ern i nterpret at i on of the st atute i s W a lto n v. S ta te , 678 So. 2d 645 ( M i s s . 1996)
. I n t hatcas e a de f endantw as t r i ed l ong af t ert he 270 days had
e la p s e d ; t h e re h a d o n ly b e e n a o n e -d a y c o n tin u a n c e in th e tr ia l. I d . at646- 67. A l though t he St at e had notr eques t ed any othercont i nuance , “t he St at e as ks us t o ‘( a) s s um e . . . thateac h of the or der s s ett i ng tr i al w er e “c ont i nuance s ” f orgood caus e’ and t o ‘ tr eateac h or der [ s ett i ng t r i al ] as a cont i nuance . ’ ” I d . a t 64 8
. D e sp ite th e p lain lan g u a g e o f th e sta tu te, w e d id
m a k e th a t as su m p tio n . F u rth e r, w e fo u n d th a t: T he r eas oni ng of

J us t i ce Lee’ s di s s enti n Turnerv. State . . . i s m ost per s uas i ve r egar di ng w hethera cas e i s di s m i s s i bl e w hen t r i ed pas tthe al l ot t ed 270 days
. A s s t at ed by J us t i ce Lee i n Turner , “ I thi nk thatthe

### 34

pr ovi s i ons of

the Feder al a nd St at e C ons t i tut i ons and of Sect i on 99- 17- 1 onl y r equi r e thatan ac cus ed be di s char ged i n denyi ng hi m a spe edy tr ia l w h ic h re s u lts in p re ju d ic e a n d in d e n ia l o f a fa irtria l to h im .”
. . . A ccor di ngl y, i n the abs ence of a s how i ng of

pr ej udi ce t o W al t on' s r i ght t o a f ai rtr i al by a del ay beyond the 270 da ys , W al t on' s cas e s houl d not be di s m i s s ed w i th pr ej udi ce. I d . a t 6 5 0
. ¶58. T hu s w e d eviat ed m at eri al l y fr om t he “pl ai n and unambi guous ” l anguage of the
s t atut e i n tw o w ays . Fi r s t , w e al l ow ed a c as e t o be tr i ed long af t erthe 270 dea dl i ne had el aps ed w i thoutvi r tue of a c ont i nuance ba s ed on good caus e. Second, w e j udi ci al l y gr af t ed the f eder al cons t i tut i onal conce ptof “pr ej udi ce” i nt o t he plai n and unambi guous l anguage
o f o u r s ta te s ta tu to ry ri g h t. A S trict In ter p re tation o f the S tatu te is R eq u ired b y L a w a n d P re ce d en t. ¶59. I ti s i m per at i ve thatw e return to st ri ctco m pli ance w i t h the 270- day s t atut e and
overrul e the l i ne of

cas es thats tr ay f

r om the pl ai n and unam bi guous l anguage cr af t ed by the L e g is la tu re . T h e s ta tu te re q u ir e s th a t “ a ll o ff e n s e s . . . sh a ll b e tr i e d n o l a t e rth a n t wo hundr ed se venty (270) days af t ert he acc us ed has been arr ai gned. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 17- 1 (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h ere i s no ex ce p ti o n for a sho w ing of “p rejud ice,” n o r do es th at w o rd
a pp e a ra ny w he r e i n the s t a tut e ; t hi s pa r tof the l a w ha s be e n c r a f

t e d whol l y b y the j us t i ces
o f th i s Co u r t . T h e r e i s o n l y o n e wa y a r o u n d th e 2 7 0
- d a y ru l e , a n d th i s p a th h a s t wo component s : f

i r s t , “good ca us e [ m us t ] be s ho w n, and a c ont i nuance dul y gr ant ed by the
co u rt . ” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -17 -1. T h e 2 7 0 d ay s ca n th u s b e e x tend ed , b u t on ly if a cont i nuance i s re ques t ed of and gra nt ed by t he t r i al cour t , pr edi cat ed upon a f i ndi ng of good

### 35

c a u s e fo r t h e d e la y . ¶6 0
. It is n o t sim p ly jud ici al re str aint an d a resp ec t fo r th e en a ctm en ts o f th e L eg isl ature th a t d riv e s th is re a so n in g . T h e w e ll-se ttl e d ru le is th a t cr im in a l sta tu te s m u s t b e stric tly
c o n s tru e d in f

a v o r o f t h e a c c u s e d
. See U nite d State s v. Enm ons , 4 10 U. S. 39 6, 41 1, 93 S. C t . 1007, 35 L
. E d. 2d 379 ( 1973) ( “a c r i m i nal s t atut e . . . m us tbe s tr i ct l y c ons trued, a nd any
am b igu ity m u st be reso lved in fav o r of len ity ” ); S tate v. B urnham , 546 So. 2d 690, 692 ( M i s s . 1989) ( “s t atut es i m pos i ng cr i m i nal penal t i es m us tbe c ons trued s tr i ct l y i n f avorof t he
a c c u se d , a p ro p o sitio n w h ich m a y n o t be d o u b ted ” ). T h is is the p lain a n d u n a m b ig u o u s ru le
as s etby the Legi s l atur e, and w e ar e bound t o f ol l ow i t“bec aus e of

ourcons t i tut i onal
m andat e t o fa i thf

ul l y appl y the pr ovi s i ons of cons t i tut i onal l y enac t ed l egi s l at i on. ” U ni v. of Mis s . Me d. Ctr. v. Eas te r ling , 9 2 8 S o . 2 d 8 1 5 , 8 2 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). ¶ 6 1
. It is n o t th e p u rp o se o f th is C o u rt to c ra ft leg isla tio n . W e h a v e ru led re p e a ted ly in
r ece ntci vi l cas es thatw e w i l l f ai thf ul l y appl y the l anguage of the s t atut es i n ques t i on s o l ong
a s th e y a re c o n s titu tio n a l. Se e P i talo v. GP C H P- GP , I nc. , 933 So. 2d 927 ( M i s s . 2006) ( r equi r i ng s tr i ctcompl i ance w i th Sect i on 1 5-1- 36 ( 15) , w hi ch r equi r es a 60- day not i ce be p ro v id e d to m e d ica l p ro v id e rs p rio r to su it); Eas te r ling , 928 So. 2d a t819- 20 ( r equi r i ng s tr i ct
c o m p lian c e w ith S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (1 ), w h ich req u ire s 9 0 d a y s n o tice p rio r to su it ag a in st a g o v e rn m e n ta l e n tity ). ¶62. W e s houl d al s o a bandon cas el aw w hi ch has unnece s s ar i l y i nt ertw i ned f eder al l aw and
o u r in te rp re ta tio n o f a s ta te s ta tu te . S im p ly p u t, B arker has abs ol ut el y no appl i cat i on t o t he in te rp re ta tio n o f o u r s ta te 2 7 0 d a y s p e e d y tr ia l s ta tu te , n o r d o e s it h a v e a p p lic a tio n to A rt . 1

### 36

§ 26 of ours t at e cons t i tut i on . T he Legi s l atur e has s een f i tt o def i ne exa ct l y w hat“s peedy tr i al ” means v i a the s t atut e. T he B arker a n a ly sis is to b e re se rv e d o n ly in d e ter m in in g if th e re w a s a sp e e d y trial v io latio n u n d e r th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. ¶63. T he pr oper i nq uiry fi rs tdeter m i nes i f there w as com pli ance w i t h the 270- day l egi s l at i vel y- m andat ed t i m e f r ame, f orthats t atut e i s f

arm or e r es tr i ct i ve on the St at e than the f eder al cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o a s peedy tr i al
. T hus , a ny i nqui ry i nt o a vi ol at i on of the r i ght t o a s peedy tr i al m us tnece s s ar i l y begi n w i th an ana l ys i s of ours t at e s t at utor y ri ght , as t he St at e has the r i ghtt o c r af tl aw s s o l ong as they ar e noti n vi ol at i on of the mi ni m um s t andar ds
s etby the f

eder al cons t i tut i on. ¶6 4
. F o r ex am p le, a d efe n d an t’ s sp ee d y tr ial ri g h ts u n d er the statu te m ay b e v io late d in
cas es w her e hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o a s peedy tr i al i s not . U nderthe pr operi nt erpr et at i on of s t at e l aw , the r i ght s of

thi s hypothet i cal de f

endanta r e vi ol at ed i f

he i s tr i ed 300 days af

t er i nd i c t ment , p r ov i de d the r e a r e n o c on t i nu a nc e s . A tthe s a me t i me, thi s mi gh tp os s i bl y not
co n sti tute a v iol ati o n o f his fed era l con sti tuti o n al sp ee d y tr ial ri g h t as an alyz ed u n d er B arker
. ¶65. I f and w hen that anal ys i s det erm i nes that a def endant has not s uf

f er ed a s peedy tr i al vi ol at i on, the B arker re v iew o f th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h t is p ro p e r. U lti m a tely , “[t]he sta te bear s the bur den of

br i ngi ng to t ri al o ne cha r ged w i th cr i m e w i thi n the t i m e pr es cr i bed by
s t atut e ors how i ng good r eas on f orf ai l ur e t o compl y w i th the s t atut e. ” Turner , 383 So. 2d at491. ¶6 6
. T h is ap p roa ch all o w s a clea r d ist inction b etw ee n the an alys is o f th e stat e statuto ry
r i ghtt o a s peedy tr i al f

r om an ana l ys i s of

the f eder al c ons t i tut i onal r i ght
. A n a nal ys i s of t he

### 37

s t atut ory r i ghtr equi r es thatthi s C our tadher e t o ourcons t i tut i onal duty t o f ai thf ul l y appl y t he l a w a s p r o mu l g a t e d b y t h e Le g i s l a tu r e , r e g a r d l e s s o f o u rv i e w o f

th e wi s d o m o f

th a tl a w. On the otherhand, an anal ysi s of the f eder al cons t i tut i onal r i ghtunderthe B arker c a s e a l l o ws thi s C our tt o exer ci s e i t s di s cr et i on t o det erm i ne i f cons t i tut i onal r i gh t s have bee n vi ol at ed
w i thoutthe bene f

i tof the gui dance pr ovi ded by cl ear l y w or ded s t atut es . T hati s t o s ay, an ap p ell ate c o u rt m u st n ec essa ri ly co m e to its ow n co n clus ion o f w h at i s m ea n t by the term

“ sp e e d y tr ial” a s it a p p lies to th e fe d e ra l co n stitu tio n a l rig h t. N o su c h in terp re tatio n is
nece s s ary f

oran app el l at e courtt o appl y the number“270, ” bec aus e i tappl i es w i thout i nt erpr et at i on, and s ubj ectonl y t o the s ol e exc ept i on chos en by the Legi s l atur e and i ncl uded i n the s t atut e. T h e N e e d t o I mp r o v e Ou r C r i mi n a l J u s t i c e S y s t e m. ¶ 6 7 . In a d h e rin g to a fa ith fu l i n terp re tatio n o f th e sta tu te, w e n o t on ly fu lfill o u r p ro p e r ro le underthe s t at e cons t i tuti on–w e al s o s af eguar d ours oci ety f

r om the pl ague of

cr i m e and i nj us t i ce. T he r i ghtt o a s peedy tr i al bel ongs notonl y t o the ac cus ed–i tal s o benef i t s s oci ety. A s o n e c o m m e n tato r h a s e x p re ss e d , the “ q u ick a d ju d ica tio n o f c rim in a l ca se s b o th p ro tec ts the d efe n d an t an d pres erv es so ciety’s ri g h t to rem o v e co n v ict ed cri m inals from the s tr ee t. If t hi s deci s i on f

or ces the governm entt o w or k f as t erand w i th m or e di l i gence t o acc om pli sh th e s e e n d s , s o c ie ty is th e u ltim a te w in n e r.” D a n ie l A . C o n fo rt i, N o te: D og gettv. U ni t ed S tate s: B r eathi ng N

ew Li f e I nt o the Rightt o a Speedy Tri al , 21 W
. St
. U . L . R ev. 6 19 , 635 (19 9 4 ). ¶68. O urC our tha s r ece nt l y s truggl ed t o as s i s ti n i m pr ovi ng the cr i m i nal j us t i ce s ys t em of

### 38

H ind s C o u n ty, w h ere M r. G u ice w a s ind ict ed an d tr ied fa r i n ex ce ss o f th e statuto ry
r equi r ement . I n a l ett ers enti n February of thi s yeart o the governo r, H i nd s C ounty’ s f our ci r cui tj udges , di s tri ctat t orney, publi c defend er, supervi sors , and Jackson ci ty of f i ci al s , C hi ef J us t i ce Smi th decl ar ed that“‘ [ t ] he over al l condi t i on of the H i nd s C ounty cr i m i nal j us t i ce
s y s te m is d e p lo ra b le , u n a c c e p ta b le a n d in n e e d o f a m a jo r o v e rh a u l.’ ” J im m ie E . G a te s , Sm ith W ant s Jud ge s to D elay C i vi lC as es , W ork Thr ough I

nm at e Backl og , C l ar i on- L edger , Feb. 21, 2006, at1A
. Speaki ng t o the edi t or i al boar d of the C l ar i on- L edger , the C hi ef J us t i ce r el at ed hi s bel i ef that“ther e’ s no excus e f orpeopl e char ged w i th ser i ous cr i m es t o be w al ki ng f r ee
aw ai t i ng tr i al , orarr es t ed cr i m i nal s us pect s t o be turned aw ay f r om the j ai l due t o l ack of
s pace , orf

ori nm at es i n j ai l t o w ai tm onths , even ye ar s , w i thouttr i al , s om e w i thouteven b e in g fo rm a lly c h a rg e d w ith a c ri m e .” E d ito ri a l, Hin d s J u stic e : Hig h C o u rt Sh o u ld S tep in to F ix It , Cl a r i o n - L e d g e r , F e b
. 2 2 , 2 0 0 6 a t6 A. ¶69. R ece nt l y the s her i f f of H i nds C ounty announce d thatthe county w as “i n a cr i s i s ” and d e e m e d th e n e e d fo r r e fo rm in H in d s C o u n ty “ a n e m e rg e n c y .” L e a h R u p p , I deas Few f

or O ffi c ia ls W

e ig h in gJ a il ‘C ris is , ’ C l ar i on -Led ger , D ece m ber20, 2006, at1B
. A nd another
comm ent at orl ament ed the f ai l ur es of ourC our tt o enf or ce the cl ear l y w r i t t en w or ds of t he
s t atut e: “The l egi s l atur e’ s s peedy tr i al l aw . . . w as pass ed t o pr ot ectthe gene r al publ i c and
m a k e su re o u r c rim in a l ju stic e o ffic ials are h e ld ac c o u n tab le.” W y a tt E m m e ric h , E d ito ria l, No r th s i d e S u n , S e p t . 7 , 2 0 0 6 , a t4 A. ¶70. Y et t od ay, i ns t ead of w or ki ng t o i m pr ove thi s s ys t em of j us t i ce, w e damage i teven f ur ther
. I n doi ng s o, the m aj or i ty shr i nks fr om our cons t i tut i onal rol e i n appl yi ng s t atut es as

### 39

w ritten , an d m o re g ra v e ly , fro m o u r d u ty to sa fe g u a rd the c o n stitu tio n a n d law s o f th e sta te
o f M iss iss ip p i. W h a tev e r th e c o n d iti o n o f th e c rim in a l ju stic e s y ste m in H in d s C o u n ty , w ith t oday’ s deci s i on w e ca l l ous l y i gnor e the conc erns of s oci ety a nd ourcons t i tut i onal m andat e. II . W a iv e r o f th e R ig h t to a S p e e d y T r ia l. ¶71. T he maj or i ty today ref uses t o appl y bi ndi ng pr ece dentr egar di ng how and w hen a d e fe n d a n t m a y w a iv e h is rig h t to a s p e e d y tria l. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls p re v io u sly h e ld in th is
cas e that“eve n though a cl earvi ol at i on of se ct i on 99- 17- 1 occurr ed, w e hol d, bas ed on the
au tho ri ty o f W

alton v. State . . . thatG ui ce w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o compl ai n aboutthe deni al of h is s tatu to ry rig h t to a sp e e d y trial b e c a u se h e d id n o t as se rt h is rig h t to a sp e e d y trial u n til
w el l af t ert he dea dl i ne has pas s ed. ” 2006 M i s s . A pp. L E X I S at*11- 12. ¶7 2. W e began t o a l l ow the i de a tha t a de f e nd a nt mi gh t w a i ve the r i gh t t o a s pe e dy t r i al thr ough i nact i on i n S ta te v . D a v is , 3 8 2 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 9 8 , w h ich w a s q u o ted w ith a p p ro v a l in W a lto n v. S ta te , 6 7 8 S o . 2 d 6 4 5 , 6 4 9 (M iss
. 1 9 9 6 ), th e ca se u p o n w h ich the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls
re lie s . H o w e v e r, B arker m ade i tcompl et el y cl earthata def endantcanno tw ai ve herr i ght t o a s peedy tr i al underthe Si xth A m endmentof the U . S. Const i tut i on: “W e r ej ect , ther ef or e, the rul e thata def

endantw ho f

ai l s t o demand a s peedy tr i al f or everw ai ves hi s r i ght
. ” 407 U . S. at528. T he C our tcl ar i f i ed that“[ t ] hi s does notm ean, how ever , t hatt he def endanthas
no r es pons i bi l i ty t o as s erthi s r i ght , butthat“the bet t errul e i s thatthe def endant ’ s as s er t i on of orf ai l ur e t o as s erthi s r i ghtt o a s peedy t ri al is o ne of the f act or s t o be cons i der ed i n an i nqui ry i nt o t he depr i vat i on of the r i ght
. ” I

d . a t 5 2 8 -2 9
. ¶73. T he r eas oni ng i n D avis and W al t on w as bas ed upon an A L R art i cl e f r om 1958— 14

### 40

year s bef or e B arker f

orbade w ai ver . I ti s uncl earw hetherthes e ca s es w er e r ef err i ng t o t he
s t at e orf eder al ri ght , butthati s uni m por t ant : w hi l e s t at es m ay cr af tl aw s and cons t i tut i ons gr ant i ng m or e f

r eedom t han i s af

f or ded undert he U
. S. C ons t i tut i on, t hey ca nnotdo l es s . T he U . S. Supr eme C our thas det erm i ned thata cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o a spee dy tr i al m ay notbe
w a iv e d th ro u g h in a c tio n , an d to th e e x ten t D avis a nd W alton c on tr a di c tbi nd i ng U . S. S u p re m e C o u rt a u th o rity re g a rd in g th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h t, th e y m u st b e o v e rru led
. T h is appr oach doe s notel i m i nat e the pos s i bi l i ty thata def endantm ay w ai ve hi s orherr i ghtt o a
s peedy tr i al thr ough af f i r m at i ve ac t i on, buts i m pl y t hat such a cruci al r i ghtm ay notbe
w ai ved by i nact i on. The C as e at H and. ¶74. M r . G ui ce w as he l d ove rthi r ty- one m onths be tw een hi s arr ai gnm entand tr i al , f r om S ep tem b er 1 4 , 2 0 0 1 , to M ay 3 , 2 0 0 4
. 2 0 0 6 M iss. A p p . L E X IS 72 , *3 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). H e br oughtthe 270 day i s s ue bef or e the H i nds C ounty C i r cui tC our ti n hi s ow n handw r i t t en
m ot i on t o di s m i s s , ar gui ng t hathe had “ been de ni ed hi s . . . s t atut ory r i ghtt o a s peedy tr i al i n t hati thas bee n overt w o- hundr ed se venty (270) days s i nce the( s e) char ges w er e br ought

. . . [ and he] has been c ont i nuous l y hel d s i nce thatdat e. ” ¶ 7 5 . T h e re c o rd d e m o n stra ted n o c o n tin u a n c e s n o r re q u e sts fo r th e m fro m e ith e r th e S tate
o r M r. G u ice , a n d a s th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f o u n d , th e S tate n e v e r p ro v id e d a n y re a so n a t all to th e tr ia l c o u rt o r o u r a p p e lla te c o u rt s fo r t h e d e la y . Id
. at*4- 5. A ccor di ngl y, beca us e no cont i nuance w as gr ant ed bas ed upon good cause, i ti s cl earbas ed upon the cl earand unambi guous l anguage of the s t atut e thatany t r i al beyond t he 270 days i s i m pr oper , and the

### 41

c o n v ic tio n s h o u ld b e re v e rs e d
. ¶76. H ow ever , underany appl i cat i on of our pr i orpre cede ntre gar di ng t he st atut ory r i ght to a s p ee d y tr ial , o r an y ap p li ca ti o n o f B arker , M r . G ui ce has s uf f er ed a depr i vat i on. I ndeed, the maj or i ty al m os tw hol l y fa i l s t o even e xami ne hi s r i ght s underthe f eder al cons t i tut i onal
a na l ys i s s e to uti n B arker , instead loo k ing to the ca se o f W al ton f ors uppor t . D es pi t e that
cas e’ s ext ens i on of

a m i s gui ded doctr i ne, t her e w as a fi ndi ng of a conges t ed docke t , w hi ch
w as cons trued, how everthi nl y, t o cons t i tut e “good ca us e. ” Ther e w as abs ol ut el y no f i ndi ng of any r eas on f

orany del ay i n the cas e atha nd. I n an extr aor di nary di s pl ay of audac i ty, the S t at e asks thatw e cons true abs ol ut e i nact i on as a g o o d ca u se fo r th e d elay o f trial. A s to u n d in g ly , th e m a

jo ri ty a c c e p ts th is illo g ic a l a n d d e s tru c tiv e th e o ry . ¶77. T he m aj or i ty al s o s eems t o cr eat e a bur den on the def endant t o demonstr at e thathe has the i nt entt o pr ocee d t o tr i al , a cur i ous anal ys i s thath as no b asi s i n ei therthe pl ai nl yw r i t t en s t atut e orourpr evi ous cas e l aw . T he ment al s t at e of a def endant , and w hether he
ac tually d esires a tri al or a d ism issal i s w h o ll y irrelev an t t o an y an alys is un d er the statu tory
o r fe d e ra l rig h t to a sp e e d y trial. ¶7 8. T oday I r es pect f ul l y di s s e ntf

ors i x r e a s on s . Fi r s t , b e c a us e t he maj or i t y t oday
con t i nu e s do w n a pa th tha ti gn or e s the c l e a rl a ng ua ge of a va l i d a nd bi nd i ng s t a t e s t a tut e. Second, be caus e w e cont i nue t o c onf us e s t at e and f

eder al l aw r egar di ng s peedy tr i al s . T hi r d, b ec au se w e d isr eg ard b ind ing U . S
. S u p rem e C o u rtp rec ed e n t r eg ard ing the a b il ity o f a def endantt o w ai ve hi s r i ghtt o a s peedy tr i al
. Four th, b ecause t he maj or i ty pl ace s an add i t i on al bu rden on a defend ant t o prove i ntenti n request i ng a speedy tri al
. F i fth, becau se

### 42

w e f ai l t o honor ourconst i tut i onal re s pons i bi l i ty t o t he ci t i zens of M i s s i s s i ppi t o ens ur e the i nt egr i ty of

the courts ys t em of M i s s i s s i ppi
. Si xth, and l as t , beca us e Phel an Ter r el l G ui ce
w as denied t he st atutory ri gh tt o a spee dy tri al gu arant eed to al l M i ssi ssipp ians. F or these
r eas ons , I w oul d r ever s e the j udgm ent s of the C our tof

A ppeal s and the ci r cui tcourtand
re n d e r ju d g m e n t d isc h a rg in g M r. G u ice b e c a u se o f th e v io latio n o f h is rig h t to a sp e e d y trial. GRAVE S AND DI CKI NS ON, J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.