Opinion ID: 2347651
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant's Asserting Right

Text: In Barker, the Court found the most important factor weighing against finding a violation of Barker's speedy trial right was the fact that Barker did not want a speedy trial. It observed: [T]he record strongly suggests that while he hoped to take advantage of the delay in which he had acquiesced, and thereby obtain a dismissal of the charges, he definitely did not want to be tried. Counsel conceded as much at oral argument: `Your honor, I would concede that Willie Mae Barker probably  I don't know this for a fact  probably did not want to be tried. I don't think any man wants to be tried. And I don't consider this a liability on his behalf. I don't blame him.' Tr. of Oral Arg. 39. The probable reason for Barker's attitude was that he was gambling on Manning's acquittal. Id. 407 U.S. at 535. The Court evaluated Barker's silence in the light of the general theory: Whether and how a defendant asserts his right is closely related to the other factors we have mentioned. The strength of his efforts will be affected by the length of the delay, to some extent by the reason for the delay, and most particularly by the personal prejudice, which is not always readily identifiable, that he experiences. The more serious the deprivation, the more likely a defendant is to complain. The defendant's assertion of his speedy trial right, then, is entitled to strong evidentiary weight in determining whether the defendant is being deprived of the right. We emphasize that failure to assert the right will make it difficult for a defendant to prove that he was denied a speedy trial.  Id. 407 U.S. at 531-32. (Emphasis added.) A number of federal cases have drawn the inference of no prejudice from a failure to assert the right. See, e.g., United States v. Infanti, 474 F.2d 522, 528 (2d Cir.1973); United States v. Reynolds, 489 F.2d 4, 7 (6th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 988 (1974); United States v. Jones, 475 F.2d 322, 324 (D.C. Cir.1972); United States v. Churchill, 483 F.2d 268, 273 (1st Cir.1973); and United States v. Saglimbene, 471 F.2d 16, 18 (2d Cir.1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 966 (1973). In the latter case the court found the defendant's failure to assert his right especially significant because it was in his self-interest. He had pleaded not guilty to a charge of violating the narcotics laws on April 29, 1965. He was released on bail the same day. Ultimately, the government moved to sever Saglimbene's trial from that of a co-defendant. In April, 1967, the co-defendant failed to appear for trial. From then until January, 1971, the government did not press the prosecution of Saglimbene and he made no effort to speed his trial. In January, 1971, however, the trial judge ordered that the case against Saglimbene be brought to trial. He did not appear for trial and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. He surrendered to the authorities two months later and then made his first request for a speedy trial. The next day the government requested a continuance because it could not locate an essential witness. The witness was found and the trial was finally held about four weeks later. The court observed that the flight of Saglimbene's co-defendant presented [him] with an attractive course of action. He believed that as long as Piparo was at large the government would not press for his (Saglimbene's) trial. Thus, Saglimbene was content to wait and hope that Piparo was never caught. The court found that he was not denied a speedy trial. We referred in the first section of this opinion to State v. Murdock, 235 Md. 116, and Harris v. State, 194 Md. 288. Although both of those cases were decided before Barker, it is significant that both cases quoted from State v. McTague, 173 Minn. 153, 216 N.W. 787 (1927), where the court said: There is no just reason why an accused should not demand a trial, resist a postponement, or take some action indicating to the court that he believes he is being deprived of his statutory or constitutional right as a foundation for his application for a dismissal. Id. at 155. In Murdock Judge Prescott for the Court italicized the language just quoted which appears consistent with that said by the Supreme Court in Barker. An inference that a defendant suffered no prejudice from his failure to assert the right is well-founded when a defendant is in a position to benefit from the delay. This was clearly illustrated in Saglimbene where the defendant had reason to suppose that the government might not ever proceed against him. It also was well-illustrated in Murdock where Judge Prescott observed for the Court (235 Md. at 122) that Murdock steered a course of inaction by which it was difficult for him to worsen his position. The inference of no prejudice is almost as clear in Erbe's case: he was free; he had no worries about the passage of time impairing his defense; and his conviction was certain. All he had to gain by asserting his right was time in jail. It seems fair to infer that he was not interested in hastening this eventuality.