Barker v. Wingo , 4 07 U. S. 51 4, 53 0, 92 S. Ct . 21 82 , 33 L. Ed . 2d 101 (197 2) (ho ldingthat 1 wh ende ter

miningwh eth er a

de lay in p ros ecutio n v iol ate s a def en dant’ s ri ght to a sp eed

y trial , c ourts I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI

NO. 2 0 1 0 - CT - 0 2 0 3 9 - S CT O N E 19 70 M

ER C U R Y C O U G A R , V IN #0 F 91 11 54 59 40 ; ON

E 19 92 F O R D M U

S T A N G, V IN # FA CP4 4E4NF1 7

3 3 6 0 ; ONE FORD M US T AN G; AND $ 3 5 5. 0 0 U. S. CURRENCY
v. TUN ICA C OU

NTY , M 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 : 07/ 20/ 2010 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. KE NNE T H L . T HOMAS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: TUNI CA COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: M AR VI N D . M I LLER J OH N M . CO LETTE A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L E E : JO H N T . L A M A R , III NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 06/ 20/ 2013 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. DI CK I NSON, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. F iv e y e a rs a fte r law -e n fo rc e m e n t of fic ials se ize d thr e e ca rs a n d $ 3 5 5 c a sh fro m W ill ie H ampt on i n connec t i on w i t h hi s arr es t , t he Tuni ca Count y C i rcui tC our tgr ant ed Tuni ca C o u n ty ’s p e tit io n fo r a fo rf e itu re . H a m p to n a p p e a led , arg u in g th a t th e d e lay v io late d h is rig h t to a sp e e d y trial. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls re m a n d e d , ins tru c tin g th e c irc u it co u rt to est abl i s h a r ecor d on t he B arker f a c t or s , bu tthe c i r c ui tc ou r tde ni e d the de f e nd a nt– w ho 1m

us t c on sider thele ngth of th e de lay , there aso n fo r t hed elay, whe the r t

hede fend ant as ser

ted his rights , and

theres ultingpre

judiceto t

hede fend ant). 

### 2 w as i ncarcerat ed at the ti m e o f tri al – an y o pp ortun i t y to pres ent evi den ce of prej ud i ce, so w e r ever s e. F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2 . O n M a rc h 2 1 , 2 0 0 0 , fed era l an d st ate l aw -en forc em en t o ffi c ials a rre ste d W ill ie H ampt on on nar cot i cs charges . T he Tuni ca Count y Sher i f f’ s D epart m ents ei zed a 1970 M er cury C ougar , t w o For d M us t angs , and $355 ca s h f r om H ampt on, and on M ar ch 30, 2000, th e c o u n ty filed a c iv il-fo rfe itu re p ro c e e d in g . O n N o v e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 0 , the T u n ica C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt sta y e d d isc o v e ry o n th e c o u n ty ’s m o tio n u n til re late d fe d e ra l cr im in a l an d c iv il pr ocee di ngs concl uded. ¶3. O n D ece m ber17, 2001, af t era per i od of

m or e than one ye arw i t houtany ac t i on i n the
c a se , H a m p to n m o v e d to d ism iss th e fo rfe itu re p e tit io n . N e ith e r p a rty , n o r th e c irc u it co u rt, too k an y furthe r ac ti o n u n ti l D ec em b er 2 0 , 2 0 0 4 , w h en the c o u n ty fi led a n ew forfeitu re p e tit io n . O n J a n u a ry 3 1 , 2 0 0 5 , a n d F e b ru a ry 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 , re sp e c tiv e ly , H a m p to n a n d th e c irc u it cl erk m oved t o di s m i s s t he ca s e f orf ai l ur e t o pr os ecut e. I ns t ead of di s m i s s i ng the ac t i on, t he ci r cui tcour tgr ant ed the f or f ei tur e on M ar ch 8, 2005. ¶ 4 . H a m p to n a p p e a led , a rg u in g th a t th e fiv e -y e a r d e lay in h is fo rfe itu re c a se v io late d h is
r i ghtt o a s peedy tr i al . O n A ugus t22, 2006, the C our tof A ppeal s r emanded the ca s e: i n or dert o al l ow t he part i es t o pr es enta recor d t hatw oul d al l ow anal ys i s by thi s C our tundert he B arkers t andar ds . O n r emand, T uni ca Count y w i l l have a n o p p o rtu n ity to e x p lain th e d e lay , a n d H a m p to n w ill h a v e a n o p p o rtu n ity toOn e 1 97 0 M erc ur y C ou ga r, VI N N o. 0F 91 11 54 94 0 v

. T un icaCo un ty , 936 So. 3d 988, 2 99 2-9 3 (M iss . C t. A

pp . 2 00 6). Id. 3 

### 3 exp l ai n w hy he d i d n ot requesta heari ng forthree years. H am pton w ou l d als o have a n oppor tuni t y t o det ai l j us tw hatpr ej udi ce he m ay have s uf f er ed. 2 T he courtnot ed thatt he r ecor d w as s i l entas t o the r eas on f ort he del ay and the pre j udi ce H ampt on s uf

f er ed. 3 ¶5. N othi ng happene d f or s even m ont hs . O n M ar ch 23, 20 07 , H ampt on f i l ed a mot i on i n the c i r c ui tc ou r ts e e ki ng a n e xp l a na t i on a s t o why the c ou r tha d n othe l d the B ar ker hear i ng. A w eek l at er , H ampt on m oved t o have the ci r cui tcour torde rt he county t o pr ocee d
w ith the c ase . S ti ll rec eivin g n o relief, H am p ton so u g h t a w ri t of m an d am u s from the C o u rt of A ppeal s , butthe ci r cui tcour tr es ponded thati tw as at t empt i ng t o s chedul e a he ar i ng and
w oul d rul e on the cas e by N ovember1, 2007. T he C our tof A ppeal s di s m i s s ed the pet i t i on w i thoutpr ej udi ce. ¶ 6 . N o th in g h a p p e n e d fo r alm o st th re e y e a rs. O n Ja n u a ry 2 2 , 2 0 1 0 , H a m p to n o n c e a g a in
so u g h t r elie f f

ro m the C o u rto f A p p ea ls, fi li n g a m o ti o n for inq u iry into the circu itco u rt ’s noncompl i ance w i t h t he mandat e. H e al s o f i l ed a s econd pe t i t i on for w ri tof m andamus F e b ru a ry 1 0 , 2 0 1 0 , an d h e m o v e d to lift the sta y -- iss u e d in N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 -- in th e c irc u it
cour t . The c i r cui tc our ts eta he ar i ng f orFebruary 24, 2010. O ne day bef or e t he sche dul ed heari ng , H am pton m ov ed fora con t i nu ance w hil e aw ai t i ng r el i ef fr om the C ou rtof A pp eal s. T he ci r cui tcourtcont i nued the hea r i ng unt i l A pr i l 21, 2010, and then t o J ul y 15, 2010. ¶7 . D u e to h is i n ca rce rati o n i n a fed era l p en it en ti ary , H am p ton p eti ti o n ed the c ir cu it co u rt f ora w r i tof

habeas cor

pus ad pr os equendum i n orde rt o at t end t he sc hedul ed hea r i ng. T he

### 4

ci r c ui tc ou r tg r a nt e d H a mpt on ’ s p e t i t i on , o r de r i ng tha tthe war de n of the Uni t e d St at es P en it en ti a ry in F loren ce , C o lorad o , take ap p rop ri ate m ea su res to p rov ide fo r H am p ton ’s tra n sp o rta tio n . T h e c o u rt a lso o rd e re d th a t H a m p to n p a y a ll co sts a ss o c iate d w ith h is tr ans por t at i on and s ecur i t y. T he U . S. M ar s hal s ’ Ser vi ce i nf orm ed H ampt on t hatany tra n sp o rta tio n w o u ld h a v e to b e a rra n g e d b y th e c irc u it co u rt. H a m p to n in fo rm e d th e c irc u it
cour tof t hi s r es pons e, butno t r ans por t at i on w as pr ovi ded. ¶8 . H a m p to n a lso filed e x h ib it an d w itn e ss lists a n d req u ested sub p o en a s fo r h is
w i tnes s es . T hes e s ubpoenas w er e i s s ued f orthe sc hedul ed A pr i l 21 hear i ng, w hi ch di d not
occur . A f

t ert he hea r i ng w as pos tponed t o J ul y 15, H ampt on reque s t ed s ubpoenas f or add i t i on al w i t nesses. ¶9. O n Jul y 15 , 20 10 , t he ci rcui t cou rt held the heari ng ordered by t he C ou rt of A pp eal s. B eca us e the ci r cui tcour tpr ovi ded hi m no tr ans port at i on , H ampt on w as notpr es entbut par t i ci pat ed by t el ephone. A n att or ney, R ober tL aher , ent er ed an appear ance , cl ai m i ng he
w as p rese n t o n be h alf o f H am p ton , bu t “N o t C o u n sel. ” H am p ton w as li sted as a p p ea ri n g p ro s e. ¶ 1 0 . D u rin g th e h e a rin g , th e c o u rt g a v e b o th H a m p to n (o v e r th e tele p h o n e ) a n d th e c o u n ty an oppor tuni t y t o expl ai n how t he B arkerco n side rati o n s ap p li ed to this ca se. T h e c o u rt
r ef us ed t o al l ow any w i t nes s t es t i m ony ordocument ary evide nce, exce ptt hat– att he county’ s r eques t– t he courtt ook j udi ci al not i ce of a t i m el i ne of

event s i n t he ca s e. T he tr i al ju d g e s p e c if

ic a lly to ld H a m p to n “ [w ]e ’r e n o t h e re to in v o lv e o u rs e lv e s w ith e v id e n c e .” ¶11. H ampt on r epea t edl y ar gued thathe had a r i ghtt o be phys i cal l y pr es entatt he hear i ng, a r i ghtt o cal l w i t nes s es , and a r i ghtt o pr es entevi dence . T he j udge r epea t edl y s t at ed that

### 5

H ampt on had onl y t he oppor tuni t y t o r es pond t o t he county’ s ar gum ent . Fur t her , t he tr i al
cour tques t i oned w hy L ahercoul d notpre s entH ampt on’ s cas e f orhi m , t o w hi ch H ampt on r es ponded he w as pr ocee di ng pr o s e and t hatLaherw as pr es entonl y t o e ns ur e thats om eone coul d ent erhi s appea r ance . ¶12. A tt he conc l us i on of the hear i ng, t he cour tdet erm i ned that , al t hough H ampt on m ay have s uf f er ed s om e pr ej udi ce, t he del ay w as pr i m ar i l y caus ed by H am pton’s i ncar cer at i on and the st ay p end i ng feder al cri m i nal and civi l proceed i ng s that f i nall y co ncluded on A ug ust 24, 2009. T he courtdet erm i ned thatthe del ay di d notvi ol at e H am pton’s ri gh tt o a s peedy trial. ¶ 1 3 . H a m p to n a p p e a led , arg u in g th a t t h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls s h o u ld r e v e rse th e c irc u it
c o u rt’s r u lin g b e c a u se th e tria l co u rt p re v e n ted h is p re se n tatio n o f e v id e n c e a n d d e n ied h im the r i ghtt o be physi cal l y pr es ent . T he C our tof A ppeal s af

f i r m ed the ci r cui tcour t ’ s rul i ng, fin d in g th a t th e circ u it c o u rt h e ld a p ro p e r h e a rin g to e sta b lish a re c o rd , an d th a t n o a u th o rity
su p p o rt s H am p ton ’s arg u m en t th at he h ad a righ t t o b e p h y sicall y p rese n t ata c ivil forfeitu re pr ocee di ng. ¶1 4 . H am p ton fi led h is pe ti ti o n for w ri tof cer t i orari , a rg u in g th a t th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls
err ed by hol di ng t hatt he ci r cui tcour thel d a pr operhear i ng o n t he B arkerf act or s and that th e re is n o d u e p ro c e s s ri g h t to b e p h y s ic a ll y p re s e n t a t a c iv il- fo rf e itu re p ro c e e d in g . W e gr ant ed cert i orari . ¶ 1 5 . It is c lea r fro m th e re c o rd th a t th e c irc u it c o u rt d e n ie d H a m p to n a n y o p p o rtu n ity to pr es entevi dence of

pr ej udi ce. B eca us e the C our tof A ppeal s re l i ed on f

i ndi ng thatH ampt on had f ai l ed t o pre s entevi dence of pr ej udi ce i n af f i r m i ng the tr i al cour t ’ s f i ndi ng thatt he del ayU.S. Const. am end. VI; Miss. Const . art. 3 §26. 4 Un ited St

ate s v. Eigh t T

ho us an d Eigh t Hu nd

red & F ift y D oll ar s in U. S. Cu rrenc

y , 461 5 U. S. 55 5, 55 6, 10 3 S . C t. 2 00 5, 76 L. Ed . 2 d 1 43 (19 83 ). Barker v. Wingo , 4 07 U. S. 51 4, 53 0 (1 97 2). 6 

### 6 di d notdeny H ampt on’ s r i ghtt o a s peedy tr i al , w e r ever s e the dec i s i ons of the C our tof A p p e a ls a n d th e T u n ica C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt. W e re m a n d th e c a se to th e T u n ica C o u n ty C i r cui tC our tf

ora new hear i ng, atw hi ch the courtw i l l al l ow the part i es t o pr es entevi dence of the B arker fact ors. ¶16 . A n d b ec au se th e c ir cu itco u rtg ran ted H am p ton ’s w r i tof habeas cor

pus ad pr os equendum , w e find itu n n ec essa ry to d eterm ine if d u e p ro ce ss req u ir ed H am p ton ’s p h y sical pre sen ce at th e h ea ri n g . H e h ad that ri g h t pu rsua n t t o the tri al co u rt ’s ord er. A N A L Y S IS ¶17. T he C our t of A ppeal s hel d t hat , on r emand, H ampt on f ai l ed t o pr es ent evidence of pr ej udi ce, and i tf

ur t herhel d t hathi s r i ghtt o a speedy tr i al w as notvi ol at ed. B uti ti s cl ear f r om the r ecor d t hatH ampt on had no meani ngf ul o pp ortun i t y t o pr es entevi dence . A c c o rd in g ly , w e re v e rse the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls’ d e c isio n as w e ll as th a t o f th e c irc u it co u rt, and r emand f

ora new hear i ng on t he B arkerfact ors. ¶ 1 8 . B o th the U n ited S tate s a n d M iss iss ip p i C o n stitu tio n s g u a ra n tee a d e fe n d a n t’s rig h t to
a sp e e d y trial w h ich , ac c o rd in g to th e U n ite d S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt, ap p lies in c iv il 4 for f ei tur e pr ocee di ngs . I n B arkerv. W ingo , the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tar t i cul at ed 5 fo u r fa c to rs to d e ter m in e w h e th e r a d e la y v io late s a d e fe n d a n t’s rig h t to a sp e e d y trial. 6Id. 7 On e 19 70

M erc ur y C ou ga r, VI N N o. 0F 91 11 54 94 0 v

. T un icaCo un ty , 936 So. 3d 988, 989 8 (Mi ss. Ct . App . 2 00 6). Id. at 992. 9 Id. 10 Id. at 992, 993. 11 Id. at 992. 12 

### 7 C our t s m us tcons i dert he l ength of t he del ay, the r eas on f

orthe del ay, w hetherthe def endant
a ss e rte d h is rig h ts, a n d th e re su lti n g p re ju d ice to th e d e fe n d a n t. 7 ¶19. I n hi s appea l of

t he ci r cui tcour t ’ s gr antof a pr oper t y f

or f ei tur e, H ampt on ar gued that hi s r i ghtt o a s peedy tr i al w as vi ol at ed by a fi ve- yeardel ay. T he C our tof A ppeal s r emanded 8 the ca s e t o t he ci r cui tcour tbe caus e the r ecor d di d notpr ovi de s uf f i ci enti nf or m at i on f

ort he
cour tt o cons i derthe B arkerfac tors an d t o de term ine w h ethe r th e d elay v iolated H am p ton ’s
r i ghtt o a s peedy t r i al . The c our te xpl ai ned thatthe r ecor d w as s i l entas t o the r eas on f ort he 9 d e lay a n d th e p re

ju d ice su ffe re d . T h e c o u rt in stru c ted th a t, on re m a n d , T u n ica C o u n ty 10
s houl d expl ai n t he r eas on f ort he del ay and H ampt on w oul d expl ai n t he pr ej udi ce. 11 ¶20. N o ci t at i on of author i t y i s neces s ary fort he f undament al propos i t i ons tha ti s s ues of f actar e dec i ded by the w ei ghi ng of evi dence , and thatthe argu m ents of couns el ar e not evi dence . T he B arker fac tors ca n n o t be a rg u e d m ea n ing full y w ith o u t evid en ce to su p p o rt the ar gum ent s . T he tr i al courtw as r equi r ed t o al l ow t he par t i es t o “pr es enta re cor d” s o t hat 12 the courtcoul d det erm i ne the r eas on f orthe del ay and w hetherH ampt on s uf f er ed pr ej udi ce. P rio r to th e h e a rin g o n re m a n d , H a m p to n file d e x h ib it an d w itn e ss lists w ith th e trial c o u rt.Miss. R. Evid. 102. 13 Mis s. R. Ev id. 11 01 (b) . 14 

### 8 B utt he t r i al j udge i nf

or m ed H ampt on dur i ng the hea r i ng thatt hey w er e “ther e pr ocedur al l y”
a n d n o t th e re to “ in v o lv e o u rs e lv e s w ith e v id e n c e .” ¶21. W hetherH am pton suffer ed pre j udi ce be caus e of

the del ay i s a f

actual i s s ue t o be det erm i ned by w ei ghi ng evi dence . T hi s i s pr eci s el y t he purpos e art i cul at ed f orourR ul es of E vi dence - - “thatt he truth m ay be as cert ai ned and pr ocee di ngs j us t l y det erm i ned” - - and 13 i ti s appl i cabl e t o a l l pr ocee di ngs s ave f ora f ew e num er at ed exc ept i ons notr el evanther e. 14 W i tho ut the p resen tat ion of evidence, H am pton had no m eaningful w ay to est abli sh pr ej udi ce. T he ci r cui tcourtd i d no tcompl y w i t h t he C ourtof A ppeal s ’ i ns t ruct i ons on r emand. ¶22 . T he hea r i ng tr anscr i pt cl earl y d em on strat es that H am pton repeat edly as s ert ed hi s r i ght to c a ll w itn e ss e s a n d p re se n t ev id e n c e , in a d d iti o n to a ss e rt in g a rig h t to b e p h y sic a lly pr es ent . A ddi t i onal l y, t he C our tof A ppeal s – af

t eracknow l edgi ng t hatH ampt on w as pr ocee di ng pr o s e – s ugges t ed t hata n att orney s houl d have pr es ent ed hi s evi dence . B uteven if th e a tto rn e y a t th e h e a rin g h a d b e e n th e re a s H a m p to n ’s c o u n se l, th e trial ju d g e m a d e it
very cl eart hatt he purpos e of t he hea r i ng w as nott o pr es entevi dence . ¶2 3. B eca us e t he C our tof A ppeal s er r oneous l y concl uded t hat H am pton had an oppor tuni ty t o pr es entevi dence , w e mustr ever s e. ¶ 2 4 . W e n o te th a t H a m p to n a lso a rg u e s th a t h e h a d a d u e -p ro c e ss rig h t to b e p h y sic a lly pr es entatt he hea r i ng. T he C our tof A ppeal s f

ound thatt her e i s no author i t y s uppor t i ng t heId. 15 

### 9 exi s t ence of

s uch a r i ghti n a ci vi l f or f ei tur e pr ocee di ng. B ut t he tr i al cour thad gr ant ed 15 H am p ton ’s pe ti ti o n for w r i tof habeas ad pr os equendum , g iv in g h im th e rig h t to p h y sic a lly be pr es enti n t hi s cas e, s o w e nee d notaddr es s thi s i s s ue. CO NC L US I ON ¶2 5 . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls erron eo u sly c o n clud ed that H am p ton h ad an o p p o rtu n ity to presentevidence o f pr ej udi ce. T he tr i al cou rtden i ed H am pton any such o pp ortun i t y. B ecause prej udi ce i s a nec es s ary B arkerf a c t ora nd the tr i a l c ou r tf a i l e d t o c ompl y w i t h t he i ns truct i ons on r emand, t he C our tof A ppeal s err ed i n af f i r m i ng t he tr i al court ’ s f i ndi ng t hat H a m p to n w a s n o t d e n ied a s p e e d y tria l. W e re v e rse th e ju d g m e n ts o f th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls and the C i r cui tC our tof T uni ca Count y, and r emand f ora ne w he ar i ng i n w hi ch the part i es w i l l be al l ow ed t o pr es entevi dence r el at ed t o t he B arkerfact ors. ¶ 2 6 . RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W AL LER, C. J . , RAN DO LPH, P. J . , KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER , P I ER CE , KI NG AN D C OL E M AN , J J . , CO NC UR . L AMAR , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .