Opinion ID: 590647
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasonable Delay

Text: 7 All parties agree that court congestion led to the eight-month delay in trying Dunn. Although noting that the prosecutor did nothing to reschedule the trial until Dunn filed his Rule 4(A) motion, the district court found no evidence of bad faith in the state's actions, and we review that finding with deference. See Doggett, 112 S.Ct. at 2691. Our review reveals no reason to believe anything more than negligence was at play in Dunn's trial continuance. However, official negligence does not compel relief in every case. Rather, some showing of prejudice may be required in relation to the cause of the delay suffered. Tolerance of negligence is inversely varied with its protractedness and its prejudice to the accused's trial. Id. at 2693.