Opinion ID: 1747707
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the delay in bringing the defendant to trial violate his right to a speedy trial as guaranteed under the United States Constitution and Mississippi Constitution of 1890?

Text: The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 3, § 26 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 guarantee that [i]n all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have a right to ... a speedy and public trial. In Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 515, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 2184, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), the United States Supreme Court observed that the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution established a fundamental right to a speedy trial, applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. The right exists separate from the statutory right to a speedy trial. Bailey v. State, 463 So.2d 1059, 1062 (Miss. 1985); Perry v. State, 419 So.2d 194, 198 (Miss. 1982). [3] The right attaches at the time of the accused's arrest, indictment, or information. Smith v. State, 550 So.2d 406, 408 (Miss. 1989). If the Court finds a constitutional speedy trial violation, the sole remedy is to reverse the trial court's decision and dismiss the charges. Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434, 439-440, 93 S.Ct. 2260, 2263, 37 L.Ed.2d 56, 61 (1973); Barker, 407 U.S. at 522, 92 S.Ct. at 2188, 33 L.Ed.2d 101; Bailey v. State, 463 So.2d 1059, 1064 (Miss. 1985); Turner v. State 383 So.2d 489 (Miss. 1980); Perry, 419 So.2d at 197. The remedy reflects the underlying rationale that the amorphous quality of the right and irrevocable personal harms attending denial of the right render any other remedy ineffective. Strunk, 412 U.S. at 438-39, 93 S.Ct. at 2263, 37 L.Ed.2d 56; Barker, 407 U.S. at 522, 92 S.Ct. at 2188, 33 L.Ed.2d 101. The Barker decision articulated four factors for analyzing the state's compliance with constitutional speedy trial requirements. Barker, 407 U.S. at 530, 92 S.Ct. at 2191, 33 L.Ed.2d 101. The four Barker factors, to be balanced in light of all surrounding circumstances, are: (1) length of delay; (2) reason for delay; (3) defendant's assertion of the right to a speedy trial; and (4) prejudice to the defendant resulting from delay. Id.; see also Adams v. State, 583 So.2d 165, 167 (Miss. 1991); State v. Ferguson, 576 So.2d 1252, 1254-55 (Miss. 1991); Handley v. State, 574 So.2d 671, 674 (Miss. 1990); Vickery, 535 So.2d 1371, 1376 (Miss. 1988); Dedeaux v. State, 519 So.2d 886, 888 (Miss. 1988). The speedy trial analysis must turn on the facts of the particular case, the evidence supporting each factor or, barring any evidence, identification of the party bearing the risk of non-persuasion; no sole factor is dispositive. Jaco v. State, 574 So.2d 625, 630 (Miss. 1990).
The United States Constitution does not demand a specific number days to satisfy speedy trial requirements; a state may prescribe its own constitutionally consistent standard. Barker, 407 U.S. at 523, 92 S.Ct. at 2188, 33 L.Ed.2d at 112-13. Under Barker, the defendant must have been subjected to a presumptively prejudicial delay in order to warrant further inquiry. Barker, 407 U.S. at 530, 92 S.Ct. at 2192, 33 L.Ed.2d at 117. Under Mississippi law, a delay of eight months is presumptively prejudicial. Smith, 550 So.2d at 408. Cf. United States v. Maizumi, 526 F.2d 848 (5th Cir. [Tex.] 1976), cited in United States v. Harvey, 897 F.2d 1300, 1302 (5th Cir. [Tex.] 1990), cert. denied, Harvey v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 568, 112 L.Ed.2d 574 (ten and one-half months between arraignment and trial not presumptively prejudicial, but neither were other Barker factors met). In the case of a lesser delay, this Court's decisions have dictated that the defendant demonstrate the strength of the other Barker factors, particularly prejudice. Smith, 550 So.2d at 409.
The basic rule governing reason for delay is twofold: the state must prove either that the defendant prompted the delay or that the state did, but with good cause. Wiley v. State, 582 So.2d 1008, 1012 (Miss. 1991); see also Flores v. State, 574 So.2d at 1318; Vickery, 535 So.2d at 1375, 1377. Once the state establishes that the reason for delay justifies tolling the clock, the clock is tolled until the next reasonably available term of court. See Nations v. State, 481 So.2d 760, 762 (Miss. 1985); State v. Davis, 382 So.2d 1095, 1097 (Miss. 1980). A bad motive on the prosecution's part significantly affects the balancing test. Perry, 419 So.2d at 199. To determine if a state-prompted delay lacked good cause, the United States Supreme Court articulated the rule that [a] deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense should be weighed heavily against the government. Barker, 407 U.S. at 531, 92 S.Ct. at 2192, 33 L.Ed.2d at 117 (citing United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 325, 92 S.Ct. 455, 466, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971)); see also Williamson v. State, 512 So.2d 868, 877 (Miss. 1987) (analyzing state's intentionally delaying trial may weigh against the state). In Marion, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged that an intentional delay by the prosecution in order to gain a tactical advantage would constitute an improper reason for delay. Marion, 404 U.S. at 325, 92 S.Ct. at 466, 30 L.Ed.2d 468. See also Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354, 361, 77 S.Ct. 481, 485-86, 1 L.Ed.2d 393 (1957) (purposeful or oppressive prosecutorial delay constitutes unconstitutional deprivation of rights). In comparison, the Barker v. Wingo Court found no error where the State deliberately delayed Barker's trial for more than five years while it tried his alleged accomplice; the state had hoped to gain testimony useful in prosecuting Barker. But because Barker did not want a speedy trial and made no motion for one until the state's twelfth continuance, and because Barker demonstrated no prejudice to his defense, the Court found no speedy trial violation. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. at 516-518, 534, 92 S.Ct. at 2185-86, 2194, 33 L.Ed.2d 101. In the particular circumstance of a delay caused by a crowded or congested docket, the delay weighs against the state, but less heavily. Barker, 407 U.S. at 531, 92 S.Ct. at 2192, 33 L.Ed.2d 101, quoted in Bailey, 463 So.2d at 1063. This Court has implied, however, that a delay caused by the grand jury calendar might not withstand a showing of prejudice. Bailey, 463 So.2d at 1062. As noted above, delay attributable to the defendant also tolls the constitutional speedy trial clock. Wiley v. State, 582 So.2d at 1012; Flores v. State, 574 So.2d 1314, 1319 (Miss. 1990), Vickery, 535 So.2d at 1377; Perry, 419 So.2d at 199. While this Court has observed that a defendant's good-cause delay tolls the clock, see, e.g., Wiley, 582 So.2d at 1012, the dispositive factor is simply whether or not the defendant caused the delay, regardless of its merits. See Corley v. State, 584 So.2d 769, 771 (Miss. 1991) (defendant's continuances generally toll 270-day clock); see also Handley v. State, 574 So.2d 671, 674 (Miss. 1990) (any delays caused by the defendant toll the clock). Cf. Flores v. State, 586 So.2d 811, 813 (Miss. 1991) (where the defendant requested a continuance, but only because the state failed to produce discovery material, the clock will not be tolled). The speedy trial policy is supported by the rule that any defendant-prompted delay, regardless of merit, tolls the clock: the speedy trial remedy is meant to address the harm visited on the defendant because of the state's delay in bringing the defendant to trial.
While the state bears the burden of timely bringing the accused to trial, Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. at 527, 92 S.Ct. at 2190, 33 L.Ed.2d 101; Vickery, 535 So.2d at 1377; Perry, 419 So.2d at 199, the circumstances weigh more heavily in the defendant's favor if the defendant asserts the right. Barker, 407 U.S. at 531-32, 92 S.Ct. at 2192-93, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (failure to assert the right makes it difficult for defendant to prove denial or right); Adams v. State, 583 So.2d 165, 170 (Miss. 1991); Jaco, 574 So.2d at 632; Fisher v. State, 532 So.2d 992, 996 (Miss. 1988). Cf. Trotter v. State, 554 So.2d 313, 317 (Miss. 1989).
Prejudice to the defendant may take several forms. First, delay may prejudice the outcome of the defendant's case. Barker, 407 U.S. at 532, 92 S.Ct. at 2193, 33 L.Ed.2d 101; Jaco, 574 So.2d at 632; see also Perry, 419 So.2d at 199-200; Wells v. State, 288 So.2d 860, 863 (Miss. 1974). The United States Supreme Court has recognized the real possibility of prejudice inherent in any extended delay: that memories will dim, witnesses become inaccessible, and evidence be lost... . The defendant must prove that this prejudice impaired a fair trial outcome; otherwise, such a claim is speculative. Marion, 404 U.S. at 325, 92 S.Ct. at 466, 30 L.Ed.2d 468. Prejudice may take a second form, that of harm to the defendant's personal interests. Jail is often dead time. Barker, 407 U.S. at 532, 92 S.Ct. at 2193, 33 L.Ed.2d 101. In Moore v. Arizona, 414 U.S. 25, 26-27, 94 S.Ct. 188, 189-190, 38 L.Ed.2d 183 (1973), the Supreme Court acknowledged the debilitating effect of delay on a defendant's financial, societal, and emotional circumstances. See also Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434, 439, 93 S.Ct. 2260, 2263, 37 L.Ed.2d 56, 61 (1973); Jaco, 574 So.2d at 632-33; Trotter, 554 So.2d at 318. Thirdly, lengthy pretrial incarceration may be unnecessarily oppressive and may pose societal disadvantages. Barker, 407 U.S. at 532, 92 S.Ct. at 2193, 33 L.Ed.2d 101. A defendant's assertion of prejudice attributable solely to incarceration, with no other harm, typically is not sufficient to warrant reversal. Williamson, 512 So.2d at 877; see also Russell v. Lynaugh, 892 F.2d 1205, 1215 (5th Cir. [Miss.] 1989) (the accused could not claim that longer period of incarceration compounded his anxiety, since he was already serving a sentence for another crime). This Court, in Ferguson, recently held that, once the defendant has passed the threshold of presumptive prejudice, the burden falls on the state to disprove that prejudice. State v. Ferguson, 576 So.2d 1252, 1255 (Miss. 1991).
A Barker application fits this case, since the 378-day delay from arrest to trial constituted a presumptively prejudicial delay under Mississippi's Smith holding. The analysis must, then, proceed to the other three Barker factors, in which the state bears the burden of proving no prejudice to the defendant.
The period of time following arrest could technically be charged to the state, since the clock began ticking at arrest. Ross indicated his lack of readiness when he moved for a change of venue on October 16, 1987. This act tolled the clock until his motion could reasonably be heard, which occurred on December 14. Since Ross prompted this delay, as he acknowledged in his brief, the delay tolled his constitutional speedy trial clock for 59 days. At the change-of-venue hearing, however, Ross asserted his speedy trial right and asked for a February date. The clock resumed running.
The state argues that this continuance was for good cause and should toll the speedy trial clock. Given the fact that the state requested this continuance solely for its prosecutorial tactical advantage, its argument cannot be supported in this speedy trial analysis. Ross alleges that the state delayed his Tippah County case solely so it could first try the strong, Union County case. [4] The court acknowledged this fact. While this case does not represent prosecutorial sabotage, it represents intentional, tactical delay after the defendant had already asserted his speedy trial right. By way of comparison, the Barker Court found no speedy trial violation after five years of a similar tactical delay; in that case however, the defendant did not assert his speedy trial right until after the prosecution's twelfth continuance. Here, Ross demonstrated his willingness to go to trial, and the continuance delayed his doing so. Given the policy goal of speedy trial, simply, that defendants should not wait for trial longer than they have to, this delay should be charged to the state. This conclusion does not signify that the state's action was improper in terms of the state's authority. It simply means that, if the state made any tactical choice not motivated by a compelling need to advance the cause of justice in the instant case, and the defendant had already requested speedy trial, and the delay helped push the defendant past a reasonably available trial date, the state should bear the burden. Barring any evidence of bad-faith attempts to undermine the defense's resources, however, this factor should not weigh heavily against the state.
Despite the fact that Ross came to trial 378 days after his arrest, his constitutional speedy trial clock ran for only 164 days, or just over five months. This delay does not warrant a reverse-and-render decision by this Court.