Opinion ID: 1695996
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Reconciliation of the Factors

Text: We confront a delay  456 days  that the law holds presumptively prejudicial. A 66-day segment of that delay is chargeable to Adams. The remainder is presumptively charged to the state and to the prosecution. When we look at the evidence to see whether the presumption has been rebutted, we find the opposite  that it has been reinforced. The delays incident to the two flawed attempts to indict Adams are, in the majority's words, attributable to the negligence of the prosecution. The final delay is court congestion which, however fervently we may wish it otherwise, Barker says it is chargeable to the prosecution. In the words of the Barker court: Overcrowded courts should be weighed less heavily but nevertheless should be considered since the ultimate responsibility for such circumstances must rest with the government rather than with the defendant.