The next inquiry is whether Torres ever asserted his right to a speedy trial. Torres asserts that his oral and written demand for trial at the bond hearing was his assertion of his right to a speedy trial. But, Torres did not appear on the date set for trial in 1988. He never reasserted his right while in Mexico nor when he returned to the United States before he was re-arrested. Our final inquiry is whether Torres was prejudiced by the delay.
Torres argues that prejudice is presumed because of the long delay.
Torres also argues that the State's negligence compounds over time as the presumption of evidentiary prejudice grows. While we agree that Torres is presumed to be prejudiced by the long delay, the anxiety Torres allegedly felt could have been alleviated if he had informed the court of the INS order and resolved this matter before he left for Mexico. The trial court's dismissal of this indictment was an abuse of discretion. The trial court's apparent presumption that Torres bore no responsibility for the delay was arbitrary and without factual support. Reversed and remanded with directions.