Opinion ID: 1093261
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The defendant's assertion of the right.

Text: On the theory that the more serious the deprivation, the more likely the defendant is to complain of delays in trial, the Barker court said the failure to assert the right to a speedy trial will make it difficult for a defendant to prove he was denied a speedy trial. Barker 407 U.S. at 531-32, 92 S.Ct. at 2192-93, 33 L.Ed.2d at 117-18. It is undisputed that Fisher filed no motion asking that his rape case be brought to trial during the pendency of his appeal in the Weathers' case or even between his acquittal and the commencement of the trial. In this context it is significant that the circuit judge's continuance order states the rape case is continued until further motions or requests of either defendant or the state. In Beavers we held that while a defendant has no duty to bring himself to trial Beavers, 498 So.2d at 791; Nations v. State, 481 So.2d 760, 761 (Miss. 1985), the right to speedy trial is subject to knowing and intelligent waiver. Thus, Fisher's failure to assert and claim his right would weigh heavily in favor of the state, except for the allegations in his brief that the defense attorneys did not agree with the continuance, were not served with a copy of the order after it was entered, and Fisher himself knew nothing about the continuance. Because the record on this point is unclear as to what Fisher and his counsel knew and when, this factor in the balancing test can be assigned little weight one way or the other.