2012 (September Term)
United States v. Wilson, 72 M.J. 347 (delays attributable to an accused do not weigh in favor of a Sixth Amendment violation).
(an accused’s assertion of his speedy trial right is entitled to strong evidentiary weight in determining whether he was deprived of the right).
2009 (September Term)
United States v. Thompson, 68 M.J. 308 (when a servicemember is placed in pretrial confinement, Article 10, UCMJ, provides that immediate steps shall be taken to inform the accused of the charges and to either bring the accused to trial or dismiss the charges; Article 10 creates a more exacting speedy trial demand than does the Sixth Amendment).
(because Article 10 imposes a more stringent speedy trial standard than the Sixth Amendment set forth by the Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo, 407 US 514 (1972), Sixth Amendment speedy trial standards cannot dictate whether there has been an Article 10 violation).
United States v. Tippit, 65 M.J. 69 (the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution provides that the accused in a criminal prosecution shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial; a four-part test has been established for assessing whether a delay amounts to a Sixth Amendment constitutional violation, requiring a balancing of the length of the delay, reasons for the delay, whether the accused demanded a speedy trial, and any prejudice to the accused from the delay; in addition to the Sixth Amendment, timely processing also is subject to assessment under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment).
(an unconditional plea of guilty which results in a finding of guilty waives any speedy trial issue as to that offense under the Sixth Amendment; in this case, appellant’s unconditional guilty pleas waived his speedy trial rights under the Sixth Amendment).
United States v. Mizgala, 61 M.J. 122 (the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution contains the constitutional guarantee to a speedy trial; although the text of the amendment does not address waiver, courts have held that the Sixth Amendment right is waived by a voluntary guilty plea; this Court has consistently noted that Article 10 creates a more exacting speedy trial demand than does the Sixth Amendment; not only is the demand for a speedy trial under the UCMJ more exacting, by virtue of Article 98, UCMJ, unreasonable delay in disposing of criminal charges in the military is unlawful; while the full scope of this more exacting Article 10 right has not been precisely defined by this Court, it cannot be more exacting and at the same time be consistent with Sixth Amendment protections).
United States v. Becker, 53 MJ 229 (test for violations of the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial includes four factors: (1) length of delay; (2) reasons for the delay; (3) appellant’s demand for speedy trial; and (4) prejudice to appellant).
(appellant suffered no Sixth Amendment speedy trial violation where
government 337 days to accomplish sentence rehearing where the
otherwise proceeded with reasonable diligence, appellant made no demand
speedy and prompt hearing, and there was no evidence of prejudice).