Document: 414 U.S. 25 94 S.Ct. 188 38 L.Ed.2d 183 Rockey MOOREv.State of ARIZONA. No. 73—5002. Nov. 5, 1973. PER CURIAM. 1 Almost three years after he was charged and 28 months first demanded that Arizona either extradite him from California, where serving a prison term, or drop detainer against him, petitioner tried for murder in Arizona. Prior to trial, filed state habeas corpus application, alleging deprivation his Sixth Fourteenth Amendment right speedy trial. In affirming the denial petition, Supreme Court ruled under this Court's decisions Dickey v. Florida, 398 30, 90 1564, 26 (1970), Barker Wingo, 407 514, 92 2182, 33 101 (1972), showing prejudice defense at trial essential establish federal claim. The court found no such here because afforded preliminary hearing allowed subpoena witnesses.1 109 Ariz. 111, 506 P.2d 242 (1973). 2 fundamental error its reading Wingo standard applied judging petitioner's expressly rejected notion an affirmative demonstration necessary prove constitutional trial: 3 'We regard none four factors identified above (length delay, reason defendant's assertion right, defendant) as sufficient condition finding Rather, they are related must be considered together with other circumstances may relevant. sum, these have talismanic qualities; courts still engage difficult sensitive balancing process. But, we dealing accused, process carried out full recognition accused's interest is specifically affirmed Constitution.' U.S., 533, S.Ct., 2193 (footnote omitted). 4 addition possible prejudice, any thus carefully weigh reasons delay bringing incarcerated defendant face repeated demands, did State discharge 'constitutional duty make diligent, good-faith effort bring (to trial)'? Smith Hooey, 393 374, 383, 89 575, 21 607 (1969). 5 Moreover, caused by not confined those proceedings.2 Inordinate 6 'wholly aside on merits, 'seriously interfere liberty, whether free bail not, . disrupt employment, drain financial resources, curtail associations, subject public obloquy, create anxiety family friends.' United States Marion, 404 307, 320, 455, 30 468 (1971). These more serious some than others, but inevitably present every case extent, will pending substantial restrictions liberty.' supra, 537, 2195 (White, J., concurring). 7 See also id., 532—533, (majority opinion). 8 Some carry quite different weight conviction another State, should overlook impact charges might prospects parole meaningful rehabilitation. Strunk States, 412 434, 439, 93 2260, 2263, 37 56 9 itself has conceded close it arguable three-year excusable. Because agree 'the rights secured Amendment,' Klopfer North Carolina, 386 213, 223, 87 988, 993, 18 (1967), grant motion leave proceed forma pauperis vacate judgment, remand reassess standards mandated Smith, Barker, Dickey. 10 So ordered. 11 Vacated remanded. mention unavailability one two key witnesses result her deportation charge had been petitioner. examples recited bear directly case: 'If die disappear during obvious. There if unable recall accurately events distant past. Loss memory, however, always reflected record what forgotten can rarely shown.' 532, 2193, (1972).

Category: 0