Barker v. Wingo – D waits for several years; hoping to convict another and get him to testify against D
D’s interest and public interest in speedy trial (ex. Barker was free from over 3 years)
Powell’s balancing test on ad hoc basis:
length of delay (here 4 years)
reason for delay (want to try co-defendant … legitimate)
D’s assertion of his right (Barker did not complain until after Manning was convicted)
prejudice to D (ex. anxiety, impair defense)
c.  Look at whole situation – here held Constitutional right to speedy trial NOT violated
Trigger – either arrest or indictment (whichever comes first)
General rule:  1 year is considered a problem (sometimes less if special circumstances)
Counting
charges filed, dismissed, later reinstated … doesn’t count after government in good faith formally drops charges (MacDonald)
If charged in state, then one year later in federal, cannot count the one year delay; separate sovereigns and each individual entity controls even if work together on case
Pre-arrest or Pre-charge delay … basic general protection is statute of limitations; severe delay may violate Due Process (but in Marion it did not)
*must have prejudice and bad faith by prosecutor (very hard to prove)
right even applies to prisoners
Remedy:  charges dismissed and forever precluded
with prejudice – P can’t proceed again
without prejudice (like GJ where can just do it all over again)
Interstate Agreement on Detainers (passed by all states but LA) – compact among states and US government; moves people around