Opinion ID: 5797
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Prejudice to Fisher

Text: There are three interests to consider in determining whether Fisher was prejudiced by the delay: (a) preventing oppressive pretrial incarceration, (b) minimizing the anxiety and concern of the accused, and (c) limiting the possibility that the defense will be impaired. Barker, 407 U.S. at 532. In our view, Fisher was not prejudiced by the delay. Fisher was incarcerated pursuant to his murder conviction, not because he was awaiting trial on the rape charge. His anxiety over the upcoming rape trial was probably minimal given that he was facing the death penalty. And Fisher does not point out any way in which the delay impaired his defense. Fisher contends, however, that the delay in the trial was so great that prejudice is presumed. In Doggett v. United States, U.S. , 112 S. Ct. 2686, 120 L. Ed. 2d 520 (1992), the Supreme Court spoke on this issue. In Doggett, which involved a delay of eight-and-one-half years, the Court held that the defendant's right to a speedy trial had been violated even though he could not point to any particular prejudice he had suffered as a result of the delay. In reaching its conclusion, the Court relied on the fact that six years of the delay was attributable to the Government's negligence. In the present case, there is a much shorter delay and the majority of the delay was caused by the trial court's interest in preserving judicial resources, not negligence on the part of the State. Consequently, we agree with the district court's conclusion that Fisher's speedy trial claim must fail. 14