While the prosecution adequately explained 12 months of the delay, no explanation covers the 11 months between the completion of judicial proceedings and issuance of the mandate. The Supreme Court also explained the kinds of prejudice the court must consider for assessing the constitutional right to a speedy trial. Prejudice, of course, should be assessed in the light of the interests of defendants which the speedy trial right was designed to protect. We have discussed previously the societal disadvantages of lengthy pretrial incarceration, but obviously the disadvantages for the accused who cannot obtain his release are even more serious. The time spent in jail awaiting trial has a detrimental impact on the individual.
Most jails offer little or no recreational or rehabilitative programs.
The time spent in jail is simply dead time. Moreover, if a defendant is locked up, he is hindered in his ability to gather evidence, contact witnesses, or otherwise prepare his defense. Here, defendant remained incarcerated throughout the entire 26-month period from our remand to the hearing on his motion to dismiss the indictment for violation of his right to a speedy trial. Under Barker we must conclude that the delay severely prejudiced defendant. For waiver, the prosecution must show that defendant intentionally relinquished a known right.