Court Opinion

ID: 9850917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:04:11.101001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:45.473408
License: Public Domain

Ruffin, Judge,
concurring specially.
While I agree with the majority’s analysis and judgment, I write separately to point out certain pertinent facts which I believe gives more validity to the Court’s opinion in this case. The majority notes that Carter’s attorney wrote her demand for a speedy trial on the indictment “in the presence of the assistant district attorney.” However, while the assistant district attorney may have been present at Carter’s arraignment, there is no evidence whatsoever that the assis*200tant district attorney knew of the demand for a speedy trial or was in the immediate vicinity when Carter’s attorney wrote the demand for. a speedy trial on the indictment.
Decided April 17, 1997
Before Judge Whalen.
Michael B. King, for appellant.
William T. McBroom III, District Attorney, Chad D. Graddy, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
The prosecutor in the present case denied any knowledge of the demand for a speedy trial and stated that he learned of the demand only when the case was placed on the calendar. When questioned whether the demand for a speedy trial was served on the prosecutor, Carter’s attorney refused to directly answer the question and merely responded that the prosecutor “was present during arraignment.” Thus, pretermitting whether the prosecutor must be personally served with the demand for a speedy trial or whether actual knowledge of such a demand will suffice, it is clear that the prosecutor in the present case did not have actual knowledge of the speedy trial demand. Accordingly, I concur in the majority’s opinion.