Court Opinion

ID: 9900244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 22:04:29.723547+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:02.703935
License: Public Domain

Rel: November 17, 2023

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern
Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts,
300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other
errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.

         SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
                             OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024

                                _________________________

                                      SC-2023-0146
                                _________________________

                              Ex parte State of Alabama

   PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF
                  CRIMINAL APPEALS

                                (In re: Nathaniel Dennis

                                                  v.

                                     State of Alabama)

                      (Houston Circuit Court: CC-12-163;
                    Court of Criminal Appeals: CR-18-1211)

MITCHELL, Justice.
SC-2023-0146

     This case stems from a cold-case murder that took place decades

ago. On a Saturday night in 1981, an armed robber broke into a gas

station where Russell Earnest Douglas was working, shot him several

times, robbed the station, and fled. Douglas's murderer eluded capture

for decades. Then, some 30 years later, forensic scientists retested DNA

evidence found at the crime scene and turned up a match to the

respondent here, Nathaniel Dennis, who was serving a 600-year sentence

in Virginia for an unrelated crime. In 2011, a Houston County grand jury

indicted Dennis for the murder of Douglas, and he was transferred to

Alabama to stand trial. In 2019, after a series of pretrial delays, Dennis

was convicted of murder made capital because it was committed during

a burglary.

     Dennis appealed, arguing that the delay between his indictment

and trial violated his right to a speedy trial. The Court of Criminal

Appeals agreed, holding that the over-eight-year period between 2011

and 2019 required the trial court to "presume" that the delay prejudiced

Dennis's liberty interests -- even though Dennis had not put forward any

affirmative evidence of prejudice and likely could not have done so

                                    2
SC-2023-0146

because he was already serving a 600-year sentence in Virginia. Dennis

v. State, [CR-18-1211, July 8, 2022] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2022).

     That was error. As this Court and the United States Supreme

Court have made clear, the speedy-trial inquiry turns on how much delay

has been caused by the government, not the bare amount of time between

the indictment and trial. In this case, the portion of the delay caused by

government negligence falls well short of the amount needed to justify a

presumption of prejudice. Absent that presumption, Dennis's speedy-

trial claim fails. We therefore reverse the judgment below and remand

for consideration of the other arguments that Dennis raised in his appeal.

                      Facts and Procedural History

     Russell Earnest Douglas was brutally murdered on September 26,

1981, while he was working a late shift as a gas-station clerk in Dothan.

The assailant shot Douglas several times, ransacked and robbed the

station, and fled. Douglas -- who was still alive, though only barely, when

police arrived -- told officers that his assailant had been a black male

wearing a stocking cap.     Douglas was then transported to a nearby

hospital, where he eventually died. Meanwhile, the officers located a

stocking cap at the scene of the crime, which they determined belonged

                                    3
SC-2023-0146

to Douglas's assailant. The cap had a few strands of black hair embedded

in the fabric, but initial attempts to test that hair for DNA were fruitless,

with forensic analysts concluding that the sample was insufficient to

produce useful results.

     Many years later, between 2010 and 2011, forensic scientists

reexamined the strands of hair using updated technology and were able

to extract a viable DNA profile from two of the hairs. The DNA on each

hair turned up a match to Nathaniel Dennis, who was then serving a 600-

year sentence in Virginia for a similar crime -- this time involving the

burglary of a newspaper facility -- in which the premises of the facility

had also been ransacked and during which the victim had also been

robbed and shot multiple times. See Dennis v. Commonwealth, No. 1285-

98-1, Oct. 19, 1999 (Va. Ct. App. 1999) (not reported in South Eastern

Reporter).

     After considering the newly discovered DNA evidence, a grand jury

indicted Dennis for Douglas's murder on May 4, 2011. The governors of

Virginia and Alabama then reached an agreement to transfer Dennis to

this State so that he could stand trial in Houston County. Owing to a

series of delays, however, Dennis's trial did not begin until June 2019 --

                                     4
SC-2023-0146

over eight years after his indictment. Near the onset of trial, Dennis

moved to dismiss the case against him based on speedy-trial grounds, but

the trial court denied that motion. The case proceeded to trial, and, on

June 17, 2019, a jury found Dennis guilty of murder made capital because

it was committed during a burglary. The trial court sentenced Dennis to

life in prison without the possibility of parole.

     Dennis appealed, arguing that: (1) the delay between his

indictment and trial violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy

trial; (2) the trial court improperly allowed the admission of an evidence

label and certain forms that, he says, contained inadmissible hearsay; (3)

Douglas's last words were improperly admitted into evidence as a dying

declaration; (4) Douglas's death certificate was improperly admitted into

evidence; and (5) the trial court erred in denying Dennis's motion for a

judgment of acquittal.

     The Court of Criminal Appeals accepted Dennis's first argument

and, on that basis, reversed the judgment of the trial court, vacated

Dennis's conviction and sentence, and dismissed Dennis's indictment

with prejudice. Dennis, ___ So. 3d at ___. The court did not address

Dennis's four alternative arguments.

                                      5
SC-2023-0146

     The opinion setting forth the court's judgment was joined in full by

only one judge, with the other four judges concurring in the result only.

The judges who concurred in the result did not write separately on

original submission, but two of them did sign a special concurrence on

application for rehearing to explain the reason for their votes on original

submission.    See Dennis, ___ So. 3d at ___ (McCool, J., concurring

specially on denial of rehearing, joined by Minor, J.). As discussed below,

that special concurrence makes clear that certain dispositive aspects of

the reasoning of the opinion on original submission below were joined by

a majority of the court.

     The opinion began by explaining that the test from Barker v.

Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), governs any inquiry into whether a

defendant's speedy-trial rights have been violated. That test, the opinion

explained, " ' considers the following factors: (1) the length of the delay;

(2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion of his or her

right to a speedy trial; and (4) the prejudice to the defendant.' " ___ So.

3d at ____ (quoting State v. Pylant, 214 So. 3d 392, 394-95 (Ala. Crim.

App. 2016)). The first factor operates both as part of the overall balancing

test and as a threshold inquiry: unless there is a significant delay, then

                                     6
SC-2023-0146

" 'there is no necessity for inquiry into the other factors.' " Ex parte

Walker, 928 So. 2d 259, 264 n.6 (Ala. 2005) (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at

530).

        The opinion below determined -- and the State does not dispute at

this stage -- that all of the first three factors, including the threshold

factor, favor Dennis to at least some degree. First, the opinion concluded

that the length of the delay exceeded Barker's one-year threshold. ___

So. 3d at ___.

        Second, the opinion concluded that the reason for at least part of

that delay was the State's negligence, and negligence is weighed against

the State -- though much less so than strategic or deliberate delay. In

reaching this conclusion, the opinion broke down the entire time frame

from Dennis's indictment to his trial into eight discrete periods and then

analyzed whether each period could be attributed to the State:

        "The delay in this case can be divided into eight different time
        frames, each with different reasons for the delay:

             "(1) From May 4, 2011, when Dennis was
                  indicted, until January 25, 2012, when he
                  was transferred from prison in Virginia to
                  Houston County to face the capital-murder
                  charge. … [T]he record on appeal does not

                                       7
SC-2023-0146

               reflect why it took nine months to return
               Dennis from Virginia .…

         "(2) From January 25, 2012, until August 20,
              2013, when Dennis filed his first motion for
              a speedy trial and requested a trial date.
              During this time, one judge recused himself
              from the case and the second judge set
              motion deadlines and ordered at least one
              status conference in the case. This 17-month
              period    involved     ordinary    procedural
              occurrences in a case of this nature and this
              delay was justified or, at worst, negligent.

         "(3) From August 20, 2013, until September 16,
              2015, when this case was originally set for a
              suppression hearing. …

                     "… [T]his period was partially justified,
               but a majority of this two-year delay should
               be regarded as negligent delay due to the
               trial court's failure to set the [suppression]
               hearing within a reasonable time after the
               motion contesting the admissibility of DNA
               evidence was filed.

         "(4) From September 16, 2015, until November 2,
              2015, when the DNA suppression hearing
              was eventually held. This seven-week delay
              was caused by the [prosecutors'] failure to
              meet the trial court's deadline for producing
              certain documents …. [T]his delay weighs
              against the State as a negligent delay.

         "(5) From November 2, 2015, until February 5,
              2016. This period was the time given to both
              parties to file briefs in support of their
              position on the DNA suppression issue.
              Although this was a reasonable time to allow

                                  8
SC-2023-0146

               Dennis and the [prosecutors] to file the
               necessary arguments, the due date was well
               over two years after the suppression motion
               had been filed. Again, this delay weighs
               against the State ….

         "(6) From February 5, 2016, until April 18, 2016.
              Both parties were ordered to turn in briefs by
              February 5, 2016. Dennis complied with the
              trial court's order, but the [prosecutors]
              failed to file a brief as ordered. ... This 10-
              week delay was clearly negligent delay by
              the State ....

         "(7) From April 18, 2016, until the first trial
              setting on June 11, 2018. Neither the
              [prosecutors] nor Dennis contributed to this
              delay. ... At least one year of this delay, in
              particular after the trial court denied
              Dennis's motion to suppress on March 13,
              2017, was attributable to the trial court and
              weighs against the State, but not as heavily
              as the delays caused by the [prosecutors']
              action or lack of preparedness.

         "(8) From June 11, 2018, until the case went to
              trial on June 10, 2019. … [T]he [prosecutors]
              filed a motion to continue to allow the
              [prosecutors] to do additional DNA testing. ...
              Although the [prosecutors] asserted that the
              new DNA tests could result in exculpatory
              evidence for Dennis, it is also clear that the
              [prosecutors] could have obtained a tactical
              advantage if the tests had further implicated
              Dennis. … [T]his final delay was not a bad-
              faith delay, but the [prosecutors were]
              exceedingly negligent in failing to have the
              tests performed years earlier. Although this
              final delay weighs heavily against the State,
                                  9
SC-2023-0146

                 it is mitigated by the [prosecutors'] offer,
                 which was accepted by Dennis, to depose any
                 witnesses that Dennis requested while the
                 additional DNA testing was being conducted.
                 …"

___ So. 3d at ____-____.

     In sum, the opinion classified roughly four and a half years (four

years, seven months, and about three and a half weeks) -- a little over

half of the eight-year-and-two-month total delay -- as attributable to

some form of official negligence. Accordingly, the opinion found that,

overall, the cause-for-delay factor weighed in Dennis's favor. Id. at ___.

     Third, the opinion concluded that Dennis had acted with reasonable

diligence in asserting his speedy-trial right, so that this factor also

favored him. ___ So. 3d at ____.

     The opinion then turned to the final and most important Barker

factor: prejudice to the defendant. It noted that Dennis had put forward

"no evidence" of "actual prejudice" and likely could not have done so given

that: (1) Dennis had "acknowledge[d] that he would have been in prison

in Virginia if he had not been in custody in Alabama" during the "entire

eight years pending trial," ___ So. 3d at ____, and (2) there was no

suggestion that any witnesses had died or that any evidence had gone

                                    10
SC-2023-0146

stale during the delay between indictment and trial (as opposed to the

much longer period between the commission of the crime and the

indictment), id. at ____.

     But even though Dennis had failed to establish any evidence of

actual prejudice, the opinion concluded that he was nonetheless entitled

to a presumption of prejudice under the United States Supreme Court's

holding in Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992). Doggett, as the

opinion below explained, sets out an elaborate multifactor balancing test

that specifies whether and how "prejudice [should] be presumed in

circumstances when the delay is excessive." ___ So. 3d at ____.

           " ' "The United States Supreme Court in Doggett [v.
     United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992),] used three hypothetical
     cases to demonstrate the accused's burden under the fourth
     Barker factor. The accused's burden 'of proof in each
     situation varies inversely with the [State]'s degree of
     culpability for the delay.' In the first scenario, where the state
     pursues the accused 'with reasonable diligence,' the delay --
     however long -- generally is excused unless the accused
     demonstrates 'specific prejudice to his defense.' Thus, when
     the state acts with reasonable diligence in bringing the
     defendant to trial, the defendant has the burden of proving
     prejudice caused by the delay.

          " ' "The second situation recognized in Doggett involves
     bad-faith efforts by the state to delay the defendant's trial.
     …'

          " ' "The third scenario recognized in Doggett involves
     delay caused by the state's 'official negligence.' Official
                                   11
SC-2023-0146

     negligence 'occupies the middle ground' between bad-faith
     delay and diligent prosecution. In evaluating and weighing
     negligent delay, the court must 'determine what portion of
     the delay is attributable to the [State]'s negligence and
     whether this negligent delay is of such a duration that
     prejudice to the defendant should be presumed.' The weight
     assigned to negligent delay 'increases as the length of the
     delay increases.' Negligent delay may be so lengthy -- or the
     first three Barker factors may weigh so heavily in the
     accused's favor -- that the accused becomes entitled to a
     finding of presumed prejudice. When prejudice is presumed,
     the burden shifts to the state, which must then affirmatively
     show either that the delay is 'extenuated, as by the
     defendant's acquiescence,' or 'that the delay left [the
     defendant's] ability to defend himself unimpaired.' " ' "

___ So. 3d at ____ (citations omitted).

     The opinion found that "Dennis's case falls under the third Doggett

category of negligent delay" because "Dennis does not allege bad-faith

efforts by the State to gain an unfair advantage based upon the delay."

___ So. 3d at ____. The opinion then reasoned that the trial court was

required to presume that the delay in this case prejudiced Dennis

because the delay between his indictment and trial, like the delay in

Doggett itself, "was over eight years" in total length. ___ So. 3d at ____.

Based on this finding of presumed prejudice, the Court of Criminal

                                    12
SC-2023-0146

Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and rendered judgment

for Dennis. The State sought rehearing, which the court denied.

     In denying the State's rehearing application, two judges submitted

a separate special concurrence to "explain [their] reasons for concurring

in the result on original submission." They noted their frustration with

the decision to grant Dennis relief, emphasizing: (1) the "complete lack of

proof of any actual prejudice" to Dennis; (2) the "conclusive nature of the

DNA evidence" against him; and (3) the " 'fact that [Dennis] has suffered

none of the harms that the [speedy-trial] right was designed to prevent.' "

___ So. 3d at ____ (McCool, J., concurring specially on denial of rehearing,

joined by Minor, J. (quoting Doggett, 505 U.S. at 659)). Nonetheless, they

believed that they were compelled to overturn the trial court's judgment

because, in their view, "United States Supreme Court precedent requires

that prejudice should be presumed" in Dennis's case because, as in

Doggett, the "delay was [approximately] eight and a half years" long. Id.

at ____.

     Following the denial of rehearing, the State filed a petition for a

writ of certiorari, asking this Court to consider whether "[t]he decision

below conflicts with prior decisions of this Court and the U.S. Supreme

                                    13
SC-2023-0146

Court because it presumed prejudice based on the entire post-indictment

period rather than the period of delay caused by the State's negligence."

Petition at 6. We ordered an answer and briefs.

                           Standard of Review

     Because the question presented to this Court "involves only issues

of law and the application of the law to the undisputed facts," our "review

is de novo." Walker, 928 So. 2d at 262.

                                 Analysis

     The decision below rests on a straightforward legal error. In its

application of the second Barker factor (cause for delay), the Court of

Criminal Appeals attributed only about four and a half years of the post-

indictment delay to official negligence; yet in assessing the fourth Barker

factor (prejudice), it based its presumption of prejudice on the eight-year-

plus period of total delay. That reasoning conflicts with decisions from

the United States Supreme Court and this Court, both of which have

specified that prejudice should be presumed based only on those periods

of delay that are attributable to the government. Since delay of less than

five years is insufficient to support a presumption of prejudice in the

absence of any aggravating factors, as this Court and courts across the

                                    14
SC-2023-0146

country have consistently held, Dennis is not entitled to such a

presumption. And without that presumption, his speedy-trial claim fails,

as the trial court correctly determined.

     A. The Court of Criminal Appeals erred by presuming prejudice
     based on the entire post-indictment period, rather than only the
     portion of that period attributable to the State's negligence.

     While the reasoning below was fractured -- with the main opinion

on original submission joined by only a single judge -- a majority of the

court agreed on one key point: the United States Supreme Court's

precedent in Doggett compelled the court to grant Dennis relief because,

the majority reasoned, the "delay in Doggett, like the delay in Dennis's

case, was over eight years from the time of [the] indictment," and the

Court in Doggett found a delay of the same length sufficient to presume

prejudice. ___ So. 3d at ___; see also id. at ____ ("In this case, the delay

of over eight years was excessive."); id. at ____ (McCool, J., concurring

specially on denial of rehearing) (describing the relevant delay as an

"eight-year" period); id. at ____ (McCool, J., concurring specially on denial

of rehearing) (stating that the Doggett Court determined that prejudice

                                     15
SC-2023-0146

was presumed because the "delay [in that case] was eight and a half

years").

     That was error. Both Doggett itself and this Court's post-Doggett

precedents have made clear that prejudice cannot be presumed based on

the entire post-indictment period as such but, rather, only on whatever

subset of that period was caused by government misfeasance.            See

Doggett, 505 U.S. at 657-58 (explaining that the Court's presumption of

prejudice was based on the "6 years" long delay "attributable to the

Government's negligence," rather than on the "8½ years" long lag

"between … indictment and arrest"); Ex parte Anderson, 979 So. 2d 777,

780, 783 (Ala. 2007) (noting that the total delay period was "three years,"

but explaining that only "25 months" of that period were attributable to

the State's negligence, and finding that "the State's negligent delay of

approximately 25 months" was not "so severe as to relieve Anderson of

any responsibility to demonstrate at least some actual, as opposed to

conjectural, prejudice").

     The law on this point is so well established that Dennis does not

even attempt to dispute it in his response brief. Instead, his arguments

before this Court take a different tack. Despite asserting below, at the

                                    16
SC-2023-0146

rehearing stage, that the opinion below had "appropriately categorized"

each period of delay, see Dennis's brief in opposition to application for

rehearing at 5, Dennis now argues that the opinion erred by attributing

only four and a half years of the delay to official negligence. Instead, he

argues, the opinion should have categorized every period not provably

caused by Dennis as negligent delay.

      The State contends that Dennis is estopped from taking this

position after having successfully relied on the opposite position below.

See Russell v. Russell, 404 So. 2d 662, 665 (Ala. 1981) ("The law is settled

in Alabama that a party who has, with knowledge of the facts, assumed

a particular position in a judicial proceeding is estopped from assuming

a position inconsistent to the first one to the prejudice of an adverse

party.").   But even if Dennis were not barred from advancing this

argument, it would fail.

      A finding of "negligent delay" requires a finding of negligence. That

is true both in the obvious definitional sense and under controlling

precedent. Doggett itself emphasized that "pretrial delay is often both

inevitable and wholly justifiable" because the "government may need

time to collect witnesses against the accused, oppose his pretrial motions,

                                    17
SC-2023-0146

or, if he goes into hiding, track him down." 505 U.S. at 656. In keeping

with that understanding, Doggett held that delays are deemed justified

so long as the State acts with "reasonable diligence" in bringing the

defendant to trial. Id.; accord Walker, 928 So. 2d at 267 ("[W]here the

state pursues the accused 'with reasonable diligence,' the delay --

however long -- generally is excused unless the accused demonstrates

'specific prejudice to his defense.' " (quoting Doggett, 505 U.S. at 656)).

      Dennis asks us to resist this straightforward conclusion. According

to Dennis, the Supreme Court held in Barker that even " 'neutral

reason[s]' " for delay count as governmental "negligence" in the speedy-

trial context, so long as the delay was not provably caused by the

defendant. Dennis's brief at 17 (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 531).

      But Dennis's argument on this point reflects a fundamental

misreading of Barker. Here is the relevant language from Barker, in its

full context:

           "Closely related to length of delay is the reason the
      government assigns to justify the delay. Here, too, different
      weights should be assigned to different reasons. A deliberate
      attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense
      should be weighted heavily against the government. A more
      neutral reason such as negligence or overcrowded courts
      should be weighted less heavily but nevertheless should be
      considered since the ultimate responsibility for such
                                     18
SC-2023-0146

     circumstances must rest with the government rather than
     with the defendant. Finally, a valid reason, such as a missing
     witness, should serve to justify appropriate delay."

407 U.S. at 531 (footnote omitted; emphasis added).

     As that context makes clear, Barker held that both overt

prosecutorial negligence (such as authorities simply losing track of the

case for the better part of a decade, as happened in Doggett) and other

"more neutral" forms of State mismanagement, such as "overcrowded

courts," can be considered against the government. 407 U.S. at 531

(emphasis added). The Court put overcrowding in the "government's

fault" bucket because overcrowding is generally caused by the failure of

state actors to take reasonable steps to ensure that trial courts have

manageable dockets.    So while court overcrowding might be "more"

neutral than overt prosecutorial misfeasance, it is not entirely neutral

and therefore weighs (lightly) against the State.           In contrast,

administrative pretrial delays that do not reflect any negligence -- such

as the time necessary to locate a "missing witness" or to handle an

unusually "complex" charge -- are not counted against the State at all,

even though such delays are also not caused by the defendant. 407 U.S.

at 531.

                                   19
SC-2023-0146

      In keeping with these principles, appellate courts across the

country have held that a delay does not trigger a presumption of

prejudice unless the reasons for that delay reflect government negligence

or other misconduct. See, e.g., United States v. Small, No. 22-1469, July

7 (3d Cir. 2023) (not reported in Federal Reporter) (emphasizing that "a

neutral reason" for delay "weighs against neither party" under Barker);

United States v. Keith, 61 F.4th 839, 853 (10th Cir. 2023) (explaining

that "a truly neutral justification" does "not favor[] either side" in the

Barker analysis and "cannot fairly be attributed to the government");

United States v. Snyder, 71 F.4th 555, 577-78 (7th Cir. 2023) (similar);

Vlahos v. State, 518 P.3d 1057, 1072 (Wy. 2022) (similar); In re Timothy

C., 376 Md. 414, 433, 829 A.2d 1024, 1034 (2003) (emphasizing the long-

standing rule that " ' "a neutral reason" ' " for delay is " ' "chargeable to

neither party" ' " (citations omitted)). 1

      1It is no coincidence that many of these cases involve delays caused

by the COVID-19 virus. These cases provide an especially salient
example of the way in which courts conduct the Barker analysis in the
face of truly neutral delays.

     Under Dennis's theory, all COVID-related delays should count
against the government, because none of those delays were caused by the
defendant. But virtually every court that has considered that question
has reached the opposite conclusion. See, e.g., United States v. Small,
                                  20
SC-2023-0146

     Dennis does not even acknowledge these cases in his briefing.

Instead, he contends that we are required to presume prejudice because,

No. 22-1469, July 7, 2023 (3d Cir. 2023) (not reported in Federal
Reporter); United States v. Keith, 61 F.4th 839, 853 (10th Cir. 2023);
United States v. Snyder, 71 F.4th 555, 577-78 (7th Cir. 2023); United
States v. Marquez, No. 21-30134, Nov. 10, 2022 (9th Cir. 2022) (not
reported in Federal Reporter) (classifying COVID-related delays as
"valid" under Barker, and therefore as weighing in favor of the State);
State v. Adams, 364 Ga. App. 864, 868, 876 S.E.2d 719, 725 (2022)
(refusing to weigh COVID-related suspensions of jury trials against
either party); State v. Paige, 977 N.W.2d 829, 838 (Minn. 2022) ("[T]rial
delays due to the statewide orders issued in response to the COVID-19
global pandemic do not weigh against the State."); State v. Brown, 310
Neb. 224, 237-41, 964 N.W.2d 682, 691-93 (2021) (holding that COVID-
related delays count as "valid" delays under Barker); Ali v.
Commonwealth, 75 Va. App. 16, 43, 872 S.E.2d 662, 675 (2022) (holding
that pandemic-related delays fall within the third Doggett category of
" 'valid' reasons for delay that are not directly attributable to the
government"); United States v. Campbell, No. 1:19-cr-25, Apr. 20, 2021
(S.D. Ohio 2021) (not reported in Federal Supplement) (holding that "the
COVID-19 pandemic, and the court system's efforts to minimize the
public health impacts of that pandemic," constitute "valid reasons" for
delay and therefore " 'weigh in favor of the government' " (citation
omitted)).

      The only decision we know of that has reasoned differently is the
Supreme Court of Vermont's opinion in State v. Labrecque, [No. 22-AP-
314, July 7, 2023] ___ A.3d ___ (2023), which found that COVID-related
delays are technically "attributable to the State" under Barker but should
be accorded "very little weight" in light of their non-negligent character.
Id. at ___. Accordingly, the court held that such delays are insufficient
to support a presumption of prejudice. Id. at ___. Thus, despite taking a
different analytical approach, the Supreme Court of Vermont seems to
ultimately agree with its sister courts' conclusion that non-negligent
delays do not, by themselves, justify a presumption of prejudice.
                                     21
SC-2023-0146

he says, our own precedent in Anderson "held that only '[d]elays

occasioned by the defendant or on his behalf are excluded from the length

of delay,' " Dennis’s brief at 23 (quoting 979 So. 2d at 781), and that our

earlier precedent in Walker similarly held that "[j]ustified delay is

likewise limited to 'delay for which the defendant is primarily

responsible,' " Dennis’s brief at 22 (quoting 928 So. 2d at 265).

     Once again, Dennis mischaracterizes the cases on which he relies.

In Anderson, this Court repeated the familiar principle that "[d]elays

occasioned by the defendant or on his behalf are excluded from the length

of delay," 979 So. 2d at 781, but we never held that those delays are the

only types of delays that are excluded. By inserting the word "only"

ahead of the quoted sentence, Dennis transforms a sufficient condition

for exclusion into a necessary one and -- in doing so -- distorts the

meaning of the passage.

     He repeats that mischaracterization when describing our holding

in Walker.     Walker explained that justified delay "includes such

occurrences as missing witnesses or delay for which the defendant is

primarily responsible," 928 So. 2d at 265 (emphases added), but never

held that justified delay is "limited" to the latter situation. In fact,

                                    22
SC-2023-0146

Walker made clear that the opposite is true when it expressly listed

another example of justified delay.

        As Anderson and Walker illustrate, this Court has never held that

prejudice must be presumed based on reasonable, non-negligent delays.

Instead, we have long recognized, in keeping with United States Supreme

Court precedent, that delays do not count against the State so long as the

" 'the state pursue[d] the accused "with reasonable diligence" ' " during the

relevant time frame. Anderson, 979 So. 2d at 783 (quoting Walker, 928

So.2d at 267, quoting in turn Doggett, 505 U.S. at 656).

        The upshot here is that "negligent delay" is just what it sounds like:

delay caused by negligence. Turning back to the findings recited in the

opinion below, the only periods attributable to governmental negligence

were:

        •   an unspecified "partial[]" portion of the 2-year-and-27-day
            period between August 20, 2013, when Dennis filed his first
            speedy-trial motion, and September 16, 2015, when the court
            scheduled a pretrial hearing -- which we, in the interests of
            being maximally charitable to Dennis, treat as the full 2 years
            and 27 days for purposes of resolving this issue;

        •   1 month and 17 days given to the State to produce documents
            for the DNA suppression hearing;

                                      23
SC-2023-0146

     •    3 months and 3 days given to both parties to brief the DNA
          suppression issue;2

     •    2 months and 13 days of extra time granted to the State to file
          a brief;

     •    1 year of the period from April 18, 2016, to June 11, 2018, for
          various motions and rulings; and

     •    1 year of time for additional DNA testing by the State.

___ So. 3d at ____-____.

     When added together, these periods come to a little over four and a

half years of arguably negligent delay. The remaining portion of the eight

years and two months between Dennis's indictment and trial was, as the

opinion below found, attributable to a variety of non-negligent factors,

     2While it does not affect the result in this case or our analysis below,

we note for the sake of clarity -- and in the interest of avoiding future
confusion -- that the opinion below mistakenly double-counted this
period. Specifically, the opinion acknowledged that this roughly three-
month period "was a reasonable time to allow Dennis and the State to
file the necessary arguments," but nonetheless went on to weigh that
delay against the State because the due date for the briefs was almost
two years after Dennis had initially filed his motion to suppress. ___ So.
3d at ____. The problem with that approach is that the opinion had
already counted that same two-year delay against the State when it
concluded that much of that delay was attributable to "the trial court's
failure to set the hearing within a reasonable time." Id. at ____. Since
everyone agrees that this period represented a reasonable amount of time
to brief the suppression issue, only the delay preceding the briefing -- not
the reasonable amount of time for the briefing itself -- can count against
the State.

                                    24
SC-2023-0146

such as the time necessary to arrange and complete Dennis's transfer

from Virginia to Alabama3 and an array of other routine and reasonable

"procedural occurrences," including the recusal of one judge, the

retirement of another, and the handling of dozens of motions, briefs, and

objections, many if not most of which were filed by Dennis. ___ So. 3d at

____. As the opinion below recognized, these delays represented either

the "ordinary" workings of reasonably diligent courts, ___ So. 3d at ___,

or else were affirmatively occasioned by Dennis or on his behalf, id. at

____. In short, even under a calculation that is charitable to Dennis, the

total portion of delay caused by government negligence is less than five

years.

     The five-year figure is significant because courts across the country,

including this one, have consistently found negligent delays insufficient

to relieve a defendant of his burden to demonstrate actual prejudice

     3Dennis's    unsupported assertion that the time necessary to
complete this transfer should be attributed to the government is
perplexing. Nothing in the record suggests that Dennis's transfer took
an unusual or unreasonable amount of time relative to transfers for
comparably dangerous prisoners. And the reason that this transfer had
to take place at all lies with Dennis himself: had he not brutally attacked
a man during an armed burglary in Virginia, he would not have been
incarcerated in that jurisdiction and could have come to Alabama
immediately to stand trial.
                                     25
SC-2023-0146

unless the "delay is five years or more." 4 Walker, 928 So. 2d at 270

(collecting numerous federal cases); see also 5 Wayne R. LaFave et al.,

Criminal Procedure § 18.2(e) (4th ed.) (also collecting cases) ("[C]ourts

'generally have found presumed prejudice only in cases in which the post-

indictment delay lasted at least five years,' except where the government

was responsible for the delay by virtue of something beyond simple

negligence." (footnotes and citations omitted)). Dennis does not challenge

this body of caselaw, and we see no reason to reach a contrary result here.

If anything, a presumption of prejudice based on a period less than 5

years would be especially inappropriate in this case, given that Dennis

was already serving a 600-year sentence for an unrelated crime and has

not put forward an even superficially plausible theory as to how the delay

     4Walker makes clear that, in some cases, the length of negligent

delay required to presume prejudice may be "more" than five years. 928
So. 2d at 270. That is particularly likely to be the case when "other
circumstances" -- such as the defendant's incarceration for a different
crime during the relevant period -- make such a presumption especially
unreasonable. Barker, 407 U.S. at 533. But since the negligent delay in
this case is well under five years, we need not address how much
additional delay might be required to justify a presumption of prejudice
in such circumstances.

                                    26
SC-2023-0146

between his indictment and trial could have prejudiced either his liberty

interests or his ability to marshal a defense. 5

     B. Without a presumption of prejudice, Dennis's speedy-trial claim
     fails.

     The absence of prejudice, either actual or presumed, is fatal to

Dennis's speedy-trial claim. As the State points out -- and as Dennis does

not refute -- it appears that no post-Doggett opinion from the United

States Supreme Court, this Court, or the Court of Criminal Appeals has

granted relief based on a speedy-trial claim without finding prejudice.

Instead, courts have consistently denied speedy-trial claims absent either

     5The closest Dennis has come to putting forward such a theory is

when he asserted below that four of the people he " 'would have called in
his defense passed away before he faced trial.' " ___ So. 3d at ____ (citation
omitted). But Dennis alleged only that these people passed away
between the night of the murder and his trial; he never alleged (as he
would have needed to do to show prejudice) that they passed away
between the indictment and trial, see id. at ___. That omission is
compounded by another, equally significant deficiency, which is that
"Dennis did not make any proffer to establish how the four individuals in
question could have assisted his defense if the case had gone to trial
earlier and if they had been able to testify." Id. at ___. On top of all that,
"the conclusive nature of the DNA evidence" placing Dennis at the crime
scene, in contradiction of his core defense claim -- which was "that he was
not at the crime scene" at all -- makes it difficult to imagine how anything
these individuals might have said could have swayed a reasonable jury.
___ So. 3d at ____ (McCool, J., concurring specially on denial of
rehearing).

                                     27
SC-2023-0146

actual or presumed prejudice, even when the other factors weighed in the

defendant's favor. See Walker, 928 So. 2d at 267, 277; see also State's

brief at 47-48 (collecting dozens of similar cases from the Court of

Criminal Appeals).

     There is good reason for that consensus. Courts place immense

weight on the prejudice factor because that is the factor that most directly

reflects the "core concern" of the Speedy Trial Clause: "impairment of

liberty." United States v. Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. 302, 312 (1986). And

while Barker's ad hoc balancing test leaves open the possibility that there

could be circumstances in which the first three factors weigh so

overwhelmingly in favor of the accused that prejudice becomes

unnecessary, those circumstances are extraordinarily rare -- as

evidenced by the dearth of decisions granting relief in the absence of

either actual or presumed prejudice.

     In any event, no such extraordinary circumstances are present

here. Even on the accounting of the opinion below, only a slight majority

of the total eight-year delay can be attributed to the State, and none of

that delay was attributable to anything more than simple negligence. We

have never required a trial court to vacate a conviction in similar

                                    28
SC-2023-0146

circumstances, and Dennis offers us no reason to chart a new course now.

His speedy-trial claim fails.

                                Conclusion

     The court below erred by presuming prejudice based on the entire

period between Dennis's indictment and trial, rather than on the more

limited period attributable to government negligence. And because the

period attributable to government negligence is too short to presume

prejudice -- and because Dennis has not put forward any evidence of

actual prejudice -- his speedy-trial claim fails. We therefore reverse the

judgment below and remand the case to the Court of Criminal Appeals

for it to address the remaining arguments raised in Dennis's initial

appellate brief.

     REVERSED AND REMANDED.

     Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Stewart, and Cook, JJ.,

concur.

     Sellers, J., concurs in the result.

     Mendheim, J., recuses himself.

                                    29