Opinion ID: 2341614
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Assertion of Tate's Sixth Amendment Right and Prejudice to the Accused

Text: We have combined the last two elements which are pertinent to Tate's alleged denial of a speedy trial. It is clear that Tate was figuratively banging on the courthouse doors asking that he be heard almost from the beginning of 1970. He demanded and redemanded that he be brought to trial. The delay and frustrations he experienced have prejudiced him in a way that is real and substantial. Tate's companion, at the time of the alleged rape, testified in petitioner's behalf at the probable cause hearing held in the District Court. He was not available for the Superior Court trial where the state had to prove not probable cause but guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The friend's testimony could have tipped the scales in Tate's favor. The 16-month delay hurt Take in another way. Because of the pendently of the rape charge, Tate was denied the privileges usually assured an inmate serving a sentence at the Adult Correctional Institutions. Since prison officials classified Tate as being in an awaiting-trial status, petitioner was not eligible to participate in the work release program. He was incarcerated in the maximum rather than the minimum security area of the prison. Finally, petitioner could not, because of his inability to be tried, be considered for parole on the three-year sentence he was then serving. It is obvious, therefore that he was denied the benefits which are designed to rehabilitate rather than punish the prison inmate. When we measure Tate's travails against the criteria set out in Barker, the answer we reach comes in clear unmistakable tones. Tate has been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial!