finding delay attributable to defendant's interlocutory appeal "ordinarily will not weigh in favor of a defendant's speedy trial claims."
How later courts described this case
- finding delay attributable to defendant's interlocutory appeal "ordinarily will not weigh in favor of a defendant's speedy trial claims."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JOHNSON, Presiding Judge:
specially concurring.
"I 1 I specially concur in the majority opinion in this case but do so with some relue-tance. The United States Supreme Court has three or four balancing factors that enter into an accused's right to a speedy trial. In this case the attorney for the accused, at all stages, asked for a speedy trial.
T2 The United States Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 83 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972) uses the balancing test for the length of the delay, reasons for the delay, continued assertion of Defendant's speedy trial rights and possibly a fourth of prejudice to the Defendant. There was delay in this case, the question is, was it great enough to cause a reversal and to allow what would appear to be a guilty defendant to be set free.
4 3 There does not appear to be any prejudice in this case as the jailhouse witness did not testify and such testimony could have been damaging as it was supposedly a confession by Appellant. This case is the well-known comedy of errors and part of the error comes from Appellant's appeal to this court and delaying the trial.
1 4 The facts are clear, the guilt appears to be clear, and, as Judge Lumpkin has pointed out, the delay also helped when the gun was not found in the lake. Based upon these factors I would specially concur in affirming the jury's verdict.