Right to a speedy trial; Barker v Wingo; Length of the delay; Reason for the delay; Assertion of right to a speedy trial; People v Willaims; Prejudice

Having weighed the four Barker factors, the court concluded that defendant-Simpson’s right to a speedy trial was not violated. Thus, it affirmed “the circuit court order reversing the district court’s order granting Simpson’s motion to dismiss for violation of his right to a speedy trial.” The parties agreed “that the length of the delay was approximately 33 months.” Thus, in this prosecution for misdemeanor ordinance violations, plaintiff-City bore “the burden of overcoming the rebuttable presumption of prejudice, and” the court had to consider the other Barker factors. The court noted that “a substantial portion of the delay was attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on court administrations. That portion of the delay seems to total approximately 18 months” (7/20 until 1/22). In that “period, approximately three months of delay were caused by the dismissal of the original charge and then the issuance of new charges. Another three months were attributed to a defense motion for an adjournment. That means that 15 months during that 18-month period are not accountable to either the prosecution or the defense. The remaining period of delay, after” 1/22, was not insubstantial. It accounted “for approximately another 15 months of delay. Approximately three months of that” period was “attributable to the defense. That leaves approximately 12 months of delay, which appear to be the result of congestion in the court and repeated judicial reassignments. That period” counted against the prosecution, but had “‘minimal weight.’ However, considering that it accounts for more than twice the period of delay that is attributed to the defense, on balance, this factor appears to favor neither the prosecution nor the defense.” Next, the court concluded that there was “no indication that Simpson asserted his right to a speedy trial until his [4/5/23], motion to dismiss.” Finally, the City “met its burden to prove that no prejudice was caused by the loss of witnesses.” And accepting that Simpson “suffered some minimal anxiety,” the court found that this, without more, was not sufficient to establish a violation.