The Absolutely Astounding Case of Larry Swearingen: Part 1

Larry Swearingen had been scheduled for execution by the people of Texas just two days from today, on August 18, 2011.  I did not list him on my navigation page as scheduled for execution because he had already been granted a stay. I took a peek at his case nonetheless, and then another, and then another.

And then another.

I hereby declare that the case of Larry Swearingen is absolutely the most astounding criminal case I know of, and I know of a lot. I'm not going to just give everything away, however. I'm going to commit the grievous writer's sin of burying my lead. I'm going to tell his story in three parts and keep the surprise ending for the last part. You're welcome to come along for the ride.

In this part, I will provide the summary of Larry Swearingen's case from Swearingen v. State (2003), one of his many appellate court decisions. 

The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, shows that Swearingen became acquainted with Trotter on Sunday, December 6, 1998, talked with her at length, got her phone number, and made plans to see or talk with her again the next day. The next day, she failed to show up for lunch after Swearingen had bragged to his coworkers about his plans to have lunch with Trotter. His coworkers teased him about being stood up even after he had told them that he called Trotter and she said that she had been taking a test. Swearingen appeared to be angry the remainder of the day.

Later that evening, while using his truck to help transport some furniture, Swearingen commented to Bryan Foster and William Brown that he was going to meet a young lady named Melissa for lunch the next day, and if everything went right, he was going "to have Melissa for lunch." Brown noticed various items of clothing in the backseat of Swearingen's truck. Swearingen called Trotter from Foster's house and talked about meeting for lunch and helping her study for an exam.

On Tuesday, December 8, Swearingen met Trotter in the college library around 1:30 p.m., after Trotter had purchased some tater-tots from the school cafeteria. After sitting by the computers and talking amicably with Swearingen for some amount of time, Trotter left the library with Swearingen around 2 p.m. Trotter's vehicle remained in the college parking lot.

At 2:05 p.m., Swearingen returned a page he received and said he would have to call back later because he was at lunch with a friend.

Swearingen returned to his trailer sometime before 3:30 p.m. and left between 2:00 p.m. and 3:30 p.m., then returned again to the trailer sometime before 5:30 p.m., asked his landlord some questions, then left again between 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., to pick up his wife, Terry Swearingen, from his mother's house. His neighbor, seeing Swearingen's truck come and go, was not able to see through the tinted windows or see who got in and out of the truck.

When Swearingen and his wife returned home, a package of Marlboro Light cigarettes and a red lighter were on top of the television. The evidence showed that Trotter smoked Marlboro Lights and that neither appellant or his wife smoked.

That evening, Swearingen called Phyllis Morrison, a former girlfriend, and told her that he was in trouble and the police might be after him.

On December 11, Swearingen was arrested pursuant to several outstanding warrants, and while being handcuffed, said that his wrist and ribs were sore from a bar fight he had been in the week before.

Trotter's body was found in the Sam Houston National Forest on January 2, 1999, with a piece of hosiery still tied, as a ligature, around her neck. The state of the body's decomposition was consistent with having been in the woods approximately 25 days, supporting December 8 as the date of death. The location where Trotter's body was found was heavily wooded, secluded, and remote. The police had previously searched the area three times without finding the body. One had to be within twenty feet of the body before seeing it. Swearingen knew his way around this area; he had driven a date around the vicinity a few months earlier in his red pickup.

Trotter's body was on its back in a pile of bushes, her right arm was above her head and slightly to the left. Her top and bra were pulled up under her arms, exposing her breasts and back. There were creases on her back from her neck to her waist that could have been caused by laying on the debris in the bushes for a period of time after she had died. Her jeans were on and the fly was closed, but the right rear pocket was torn downwards exposing part of her buttocks. She was wearing red underwear. There were no scratches found on her exposed skin as one would expect to find if she had been dragged to the location. However, there was no soil on Trotter's shoes. She had only one shoe on; the other shoe was lying nearby.

Trotter died from asphyxia, lack of oxygen, by ligature strangulation. The nylon ligature was a section cut from a pair of pantyhose; the matching complementary portion of the pantyhose was found in Swearingen's trailer. There also appeared to be a sharp-forced injury on Trotter's neck that would have been inflicted before Trotter died, while her blood continued to circulate. Although there was subsequent animal activity and tooth marks on the neck organs at that area, a cut with a sharp object, like a knife, could not be ruled out.

The lack of defensive wounds, such as broken fingernails, and the difficulty of tying an elastic piece of nylon around a struggling victim, suggested that Trotter may have been unconscious when the ligature was applied. Although the state of decomposition made it difficult to determine, the left side of Trotter's face was much darker and at a more advanced stage of decomposition, which could be consistent with having sustained a bruise on the left side of her face. Evidence showed that animals are drawn to blood and a bruise would collect blood close to the skin's surface. There was also a deep bruise on Trotter's tongue, like a bite or a cut, consistent both with being struck under the chin, which would push the lower jaw up onto the tongue, and with biting down on the tongue while being strangled or suffering a seizure. There was also discoloration on Trotter's vaginal wall, a bruise that could have been caused by sexual intercourse on the day of her disappearance.

There were fibers found on Trotter similar to fibers from Swearingen's jacket, others similar to the seat and head-liner in Swearingen's truck, and others similar to the carpet in Swearingen's master bedroom. There were also fibers found in Swearingen's truck that were similar to fibers from Trotter's jacket. There were hairs in Swearingen's truck that appeared to have been forcibly removed from Trotter's head.

An internal examination revealed that Trotter's stomach contained not only what appeared to be a form of potato, but also what appeared to be chicken and a small amount of greenish vegetable material.

While in jail awaiting trial, Swearingen sent a letter to his mother that the evidence showed Swearingen had written, with the help of an English-Spanish dictionary and had his cellmate copy. The letter stated it was written by a girl named Robin who could identify Trotter's murderer as someone other than Swearingen and who knew the details of the murder. The translation of the letter is as follows:

Larry
I have information that I need to tell you about Melissa and Wanda. I was with the murderer of Melissa, and with the one that took Wanda from work. I am not sure what he did with Wanda, but I saw everything that happened to Melissa. He was talking to her in the parking lot. They went to school together is what he told me. "We drove for awhile, and then we went and had breakfast. I began to talk about sex when she said she had to go home." He hit her in the left eye, and she fell to the floor of her car. He took her to the wood and began to choke her with his hands at first, then he jerked (jalar is slang) her to the bushes. He cut her throat to make sure that she was dead. Her shoe came off when he jerked (slang) her into the bushes. Her jabear (cannot make out/ no such word in Spanish) was torn. I am in love with him, and I don't want him in jail. The man in jail doesn't deserve to be in jail, either. To make sure that you know, I am telling you the truth. She was wearing red panties when R.D. murdered her. He choked her with his hands first, but he used A piece of rope the truck from his truck; he had a piece of black rope that he used in his boat to anchor it, or something, he said. When he dragged her from the car, he put her in the shrub on her back. I know that I should turn him in, but he told me that he would kill me, too, and I believe him. He has told about this murder to 3 other women in the past, will tell you that he smokes, and he smoked with her at the college at 2:30 and drove a blue truck. His hair is blonde and brown and lives here. His name is Ronnie, but that is all I can tell, if you want more information, say it on paper and I will continue to write, but I want to come in.
Robin

After a bit of chatter, the appellate decision then summarizes the evidence in favor of the defense.

The only significant independent evidence contrary to the verdict is the testimony of Swearingen explaining that he left Trotter at the college, while she was talking to another man, and went to see his grandmother, and his grandmother's testimony that Swearingen picked her up and took her to the post office around 2:30 p.m. on December 8, 1998 and left her around 2:50 p.m. The State on cross-examination, called into question his grandmother's memory of the date and time and also the credibility of her statement as she had not informed the authorities of her knowledge of Swearingen's whereabouts while he languished in jail awaiting trial. The jury could have reasonably disbelieved both witnesses' testimony. We must defer to the jury's judgment of the witnesses' credibility.

Other evidence tending to disprove or dispute guilt consists of testimony that the forensic evidence would also be consistent with other theories. For example, there was testimony that Trotter's shirt could have been pulled up in the process of dragging her body to the bushes. However, there was also testimony that no scratches were found on the body as would be expected if exposed skin were pulled across debris on the ground. There was testimony that the creases on her back could have been produced by laying on her clothing for a period of time after she had died, indicating that her top was pulled up post-mortem, but there was other testimony that the creases on her back could have been produced by her bare back laying on the debris from the time she died. There was also testimony that the vaginal discoloration could have been caused by an infection that her medical records indicated she had suffered.

That's about it. The jury voted Swearingen guilty of murdering Melissa Trotter by ligature strangulation in the course of committing or attempting to commit kidnapping or aggravated sexual assault. It seems to me there was almost no evidence whatsoever to support the kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault components of the State's case. I would likely have voted Not Guilty on those counts.

The evidence for the murder count, however, was substantial though circumstantial. Billy Sinclair, author of Capital Punishment: An Indictment by a Death Row Survivor, summarizes the evidence against Swearingen thus:

• Swearingen was the last person Trotter was seen with alive (she was seen with him by three witnesses)
• Two of Swearingen’s friends overheard Swearingen in a cell phone conversation on December 7 arranging a dinner meeting with Trotter on December 8
• Ms. Trotter had been in Swearingen’s truck where her forcibly removed hair follicles were found
• Trotter was in Swearingen’s house on the day she disappeared, the house was later found in disarray, and Swearingen falsely reported a burglary of the residence
• Documents belonging to Trotter were found near the residence of Swearingen’s parents
• Trotter’s cigarettes were found in Swearingen’s house
• Trotter was wearing the same clothes at the time of death as she wore on the day of her disappearance and a note given to her by a friend on December 8 was found in the back pocket of her jeans
• Swearingen’s cell phone records placed him near the location where Trotter’s body was found
• A half pair of pantyhose belonging to Swearingen’s former wife was found in Swearingen’s house while the other half was found wrapped around Trotter’s neck
• Contents from the last meal Trotter ate on the day of her disappearance were found in her stomach -- a meal eaten with Swearingen
• Swearingen lied about his whereabouts on the day of Trotter’s disappearance, fled from the police, tried to fabricate an alibi, and made false police reports
• Swearingen asked others to lie on his behalf and told other people the police would be after him
• Swearingen crafted a letter written in Spanish in jail designed to deflect attention from himself -- a letter which contained detailed specifics about Trotter’s murder which accurately corroborated the physical and medical evidence in the case
• Swearingen reportedly told other inmates, “fuck, yeah, I did it” and his only objective was to escape the death penalty
• Trotter’s body was found in an area of the Sam Houston National Forest where Swearingen had frequented

Sinclair suspects Swearingen is factually guilty: "I don’t know beyond a reasonable doubt whether or not Larry Ray Swearingen is guilty, but I do know there is a compelling body of evidence which is highly incriminating." I suspect most people wouldn't be as reticent about declaring Swearingen absolutely, unquestionably guilty.

However, ....

If I had been setting on the jury, I hope I would have had the courage to vote Not Guilty, and the persuasive powers to convince all the others to join me. I see something in the evidence just presented that makes me believe Larry Swearingen is factually innocent.

Had I been on the jury, I would have been pretty sure I was right, but not positive, about his actual innocence. If it turned out I was indeed right, and I voted guilty, I would have sent an innocent man to the needle. If it turned out I was wrong, I would have allowed my hubris to interfere with finding justice for Melissa Trotter.

As it turned out, I would have been correct in concluding that Larry Swearingen is factually innocent.

Can you, as a skeptical juror, see it?  Can you see why Larry Swearingen must be factually innocent based on the evidence just presented?

Stay tuned.

ADDENDUM:
Part 2 now available.

A Tale of Two (Wanton) Cities

In my last post bagging on the law enforcement agenices of Prince George's County, I showed their riot police beating with sticks a young man who had the temerity to dance in front of a police horse. I'll repeat that video below. (My apology if you are subjected to a 15 second commerical.)

The sheer wantoness of the police assault reminded me of one I had seen earlier, from New York City. In the NYC video, a cop went well out of his way to assault a bike rider.

Besides the similarity in wantoness, the parallel in both cases is that the those who were assaulted were charged with assault. In both cases, had it not been for the videos taken by private citizens, the victims of assault would have almost certainly been wrongfully convicted. Who would take the word of a defendant over the word of a whole bunch of police officers telling the same story. The police would have no motive to lie. Right?  And the defendant would. Right?

I'll present the NYC story in two videos. The first shows the assault most clearly. The second shows it less clearly from a different angle, but the second overlays the testimony, under oath, of the assualting officer. Watch them both for full effect, and be amazed.

And be terribly disappointed.

Perhaps as jurors we should consider granting defendants the presumption of innocence.

It's just a suggestion.

The Impending Execution of Jerry Terrell Jackson

Jerry Terrell Jackson sits on death row awaiting execution by the people of Virginia. He was convicted of the rape and murder of 88-year-old Ruth W. Phillips. I provide below the factual summary from the appellate decision Jackson v. Commonwealth, 2004.

Around 7 p.m., on Sunday, August 26, 2001, Richard Phillips discovered the body of his 88-year-old mother, Ruth Phillips, lying "twisted and exposed" on a bed in her bedroom. Phillips explained that his mother's "leg was twisted around, and her pubic region was exposed[; h]er breast was exposed[; and h]er nightgown was up around her neck." Mrs. Phillips lived alone in an apartment located in Williamsburg, and her son had become concerned about her well-being that day because she had not attended church and was not answering her telephone. After finding his mother's body, Phillips went outside and used a cellular telephone to call the "911" emergency number. While waiting for emergency personnel to arrive, he noticed that the screen on a bathroom window in the apartment had been removed.

A subsequent autopsy of Mrs. Phillips' body revealed a contusion on her nose and some hemorrhaging of minute blood vessels in her cheeks and eyes. There were also two lacerations to her vagina, one on the exterior area and the other one on the interior area. The medical examiner who performed the autopsy opined that the cause of death was asphyxia. Death by asphyxia, according to the medical examiner, occurs when the brain is without a supply of oxygen for four to six minutes although unconsciousness may come about within 15 to 30 seconds.

An investigator with the James City County Police Department, Jeff Vellines, went to Mrs. Phillips' apartment and collected several items of physical evidence. He found a window screen, mirror case, and cosmetic items outside the apartment near the master bathroom window. Inside, Vellines discovered a black pocketbook lying on the floor next to Mrs. Phillips' bed, and a brown wallet underneath the pocketbook. The wallet did not contain any money. However, a white square piece of paper found in the wallet contained one latent fingerprint of value for identification purposes. That fingerprint was later compared with the fingerprints of the defendant and found to be "one and the same."

Another investigator at the crime scene recovered a hair from Mrs. Phillips chest area and another hair on the bed below the stomach area. During the autopsy of Mrs. Phillips' body, additional hairs were collected from her left thigh area. Microscopic examination of those hairs by a forensic scientist revealed that one of the hairs recovered from Mrs. Phillips' thigh area and the other two hairs were pubic hairs, but they were not consistent with samples of Mrs. Phillips' pubic hair. These same three hairs along with samples of the defendant's blood and hair were later subjected to mitochondrial DNA analysis. According to the forensic scientist who performed the testing, Jackson could not be excluded as the source of the hairs found on Mrs. Phillips' body and bed. The "mtDNA sequence data" of each of those hairs matched the "corresponding mtDNA sequence of the blood" taken from the defendant.

In December 2001, Vellines and Eric Peterson, also an investigator with the James City County Police Department, interviewed Jackson in the James City County Law Enforcement Center. After waiving his Miranda rights, Jackson admitted entering Mrs. Phillips' apartment, searching through and taking money out of her purse, and then exiting through a back window. Jackson stated that he did not know that Mrs. Phillips was at home, and that, when he turned on the light and was going through her purse, Mrs. Phillips, who was lying in bed, confronted him and stated, "What do you want? I'll give you whatever, just get out." In the defendant's words, "[I]t just scared me and I covered her up[.]" Jackson acknowledged that he held a pillow over her face for two or three minutes and tried to make her "pass out" so she could not identify him. Jackson stated that, when Mrs. Phillips stopped screaming, that was his "cue that she [had] passed out." He also admitted that he inserted his penis into her vagina while he was holding the pillow over her face.

Continuing, Jackson stated that he took Mrs. Phillips' automobile when he left her apartment and drove it to another apartment complex, where he abandoned the vehicle with the keys lying on top of it. He also used $60 that he had taken from her purse to purchase marijuana. Throughout the interview, Jackson denied that anyone else was with him during this incident and insisted that he did not mean to kill Mrs. Phillips.

At trial, Jackson testified to a different version of the events that supposedly transpired at Mrs. Phillips' apartment. The defendant claimed that, on the day in question, he had been playing basketball until around midnight at the apartment complex where Mrs. Phillips lived. Jackson stated that, as he was leaving, he came in contact with Alex Meekins and Jasper Meekins. Jackson decided to participate in their plan to break into Mrs. Phillips' apartment. According to Jackson, Alex entered the apartment through a window and then let Jasper and the defendant in through the front door. While Jackson was looking through Mrs. Phillips' purse, she woke up and asked what was going on. Jackson testified that the following events then took place in Mrs. Phillips' bedroom:

Jasper Meekins, he put the pillow over her face and smothered her. While he was smothering her, I think she was struggling, but I told him at the end when I heard some sound, she was gurgling, I told him to stop. I pushed him off. As we were leaving, I pulled her nightgown down. I put the blanket over her, and I picked the pillow up initially and I didn't like what I saw, so I put the pillow back.

Jackson explained that he confessed to Peterson because he thought that was what Peterson wanted to hear, and because he just wanted to "get out of there as fast as [he] could." Jackson also explained that he never told the investigators about Jasper's and Alex's participation in the crime because he was "scared for [his] family on the streets" and had concerns about being a "snitch." At trial, Jackson denied raping or killing Mrs. Phillips. He also denied having any knowledge about who raped Mrs. Phillips or about how his pubic hairs got on her body.

Two footnotes from that decision are also pertinent to this post.

Footnote 2:  Jackson also testified at a hearing on a motion to suppress his confession. His testimony at that hearing also differed from his statement to the police.

Footnote 3: A mitochondrial DNA analysis of blood taken from Alex Meekins [the accomplice claimed by Jerry Jackson during his trial] showed that his [Meekins'] mtDNA sequence did not correspond to the mtDNA sequence of the three hairs recovered from Mrs. Phillips' body.

I find no claim that Jerry Jackson is factually innocent of the crime. Even Jackson himself admits to willfully participating in the break-in that led to the death of Ruth Phillips. The fingerprint and mitochondrial DNA match corroborate his admission / testimony that he was there. (I am skeptical of hair and fiber matching, but not mtDNA analysis of hair samples.)

Given the certainty of Jerry Jackson's commission or participation in the crime, I take no position regarding his execution. I stand mute.

Rick The Needle

Rick "The Needle" Perry has told the country he will tell the country this coming Saturday whether he intends to bless the country by running for President of the United States of America.  Color me surprised.

I doubt very few of you remember, but I predicted back in May that he was going to run. I'm not talking last May. I'm talking 16 May of 2010. 

I've pretty much kept my political thoughts to myself on this blog. I don't want to contaminate my basic message about our problem of wrongful convictions by dividing my readership along political lines. Given that caution, I guess I have no justification for now expressing a political opinion, especially one that might irritate readers from both sides of the political spectrum.  Nonetheless, Rick Perry's impending announcement that God has called on him to run and save us all has pushed me to the brink.

So here goes. My first political statement of this blog.

If the presidential election comes down to a choice of Rick Perry or Barack Obama, I would be unable to vote for either of them. There will certainly be a number of lesser-knowns on the ballot, and I would vote for any of them in a heart beat. If there is a libertarian candidate on the ballot, I would vote for that candidate.

Financially, we cannot afford another four years of Barack Obama. (We can't even afford the last three.) Socially, we could not afford four years of Rick "The Needle" Perry. (Cameron Todd Willingham, Frances Elaine Newton, Kia Levoy Johnson, and Lamont Reese couldn't even afford The Needle's two terms as governor.)

This blog post is, as they call it in our justice system, a statement against interest. Not only do I risk alienating my readership, I could be butching my big chance to become a despised millionaire jet owner. If Rick Perry were to get the Republican nomination, the Obama campaign would absolutely spend a good portion of its projected billion dollar war chest to dig up dirt on Rick The Needle. 

That kind of money can buy a lot of copies of The Skeptical Juror and The Trial of Cameron Todd Willingham and Inferno. I would be pleased to offer a special group discount.

Let's see what Rick thinks of that possibility.

Rick "The Needle" Perry

Speedy Trial Takes One in the Nuts

You don't need to read the Constitution. It's right in the banner of this august blog. "The accused shall have the right to a speedy trial." It's kind of an important right. Otherwise the authorities can imprison you forever without a trial. You're not convicted, you're just incarcerated awaiting trial.

In Prince George's County, Maryland, a speedy trial apparently means something more than a year, sometime at the convenience of the manufacturer of the automated speeding system, who is given the power  to schedule the trials. Speeding Ticket Ace Will Foreman has been waiting more than a year to fight many of his automated speeding tickets in court. During the wait, the State has threatened to not register his company vehicles because he has unpaid speeding tickets.

Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about speedy trials:

Speedy trial refers to one of the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution to defendants in criminal proceedings. The right to a speedy trial, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, is intended to ensure that defendants are not subjected to unreasonably lengthy incarceration prior to a fair trail. In adjudicating speedy trial claims, the Supreme Court has developed a four-part test that considers the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right to a speedy trial, and the prejudice to the defendant (Barker v. Wingo, 1972).

Violations of the principle, such as where the state has failed to bring the case to trial for an "unreasonable" length of time, may be a cause for dismissal of a criminal case.

In the United States, the length of time can either be defined by statute (for example, in New York, the prosecution must be "ready for trial" within six months on all felonies except murder, or the charges are dismissed by action of law without regard to the merits of the case), or determined by a court under a substantive theory based on the Sixth Amendment; which states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial ..." This argument is typically made in cases in which a significant amount of time has lapsed between the date of the commission of the crime and the date of arrest.

Most, if not all, statutes defining the period of speedy trial time also include various exceptions to this rule. Examples of such exceptions are periods of time in which the delay preceding the trial is due to the request of the defense, or if there is good cause.

Allow me to interpret. You no longer have a right to a speedy trial. Not only will the Supreme Court  not establish a firm time, the Court requires the defendant prove he was not somehow prejudiced by being incarcerated without a trial. I think the Supremes missed the point on this one. The point is not that the incarceration prejudiced one's chance for a fair trail. The point is one was in jail for a long time without being convicted of a crime.

I'm unaware of anyone who has had a felony dismissed because he didn't get a speedy trial.

Still, even my jaded perspective was rattled by this blog post from NMissCommentator, "A blog from the hills of North Mississippi." The Supreme Court of Mississippi has recently ruled that Virgil Johnson's right to a speedy trial was violated simply because he was incarcerated for 680 days before being given his trial. Virgil Johnson had been convicted of shooting his "friend" in the neck, and the Mississippi Supreme Court had no intention of setting him free, speedy trial be damned.

From the Supreme Court decision, we sort of learn the reason for the delay.

The trial court found the delay was necessary due to the backlog of cases, and noted that several, older cases were set before Johnson’s that may have caused his case to be put off until the court’s next term. Further, the State provided three trial dates from the computer system used throughout Hinds County, which showed that Johnson’s case had been set for trial three months after he was arraigned.

Holy crap!  Mississippi couldn't give Virgil Johnson a speedy trial because they were too busy not giving a bunch of other people a speedy trial, and because ... because ... uh, uh ... I have no idea what the second sentence meant.

Instead of granting Virgil's motion to have the verdict set aside, the Mississippi Supreme Court told Virgil Johnson to count his lucky stars. It could have been worse. Other people had been in custody longer. The Mississippi Supremes even gave some numbers.

• Some guy named Sharp was held 731 days without a trial
• Some guy named Manix was held 1,430 days without a trial.
• Some guy named Moffett was held for 1,656 days without a trial.

At least there was a dissent in this case. Presiding Justice Dickinson, bless his heart, wrote:

It is no secret that, for the past twenty years, the Sixth-Amendment right to a speedy trial has been under attack and on life support. Although this Court’s previous decisions have suggested that—given the right set of facts—a speedy trial claim could possibly be won, today’s final, fatal blow mercifully puts the criminal-defense bar out of its misery. Whereas previous decisions have been less than clear, today’s plurality opinion is as subtle as a stick of dynamite—the Sixth-Amendment right to a speedy trial in Mississippi is dead.

In previous cases, this Court at least paid lip service to a few speedy-trial maxims, such as “an eight-month delay is presumptively prejudicial” ... But today, the plurality ... makes crystal clear this Court’s position on the right to a speedy trial: the life support plug has been pulled, and the right to a speedy trial exists no more.

Because I believe the Sixth-Amendment right to a speedy trial is as important to us today as it was when it was proposed by our Founding Fathers in 1789, and ratified by the people in 1791, I respectfully dissent.

As it turns out, not-so-speedy trial folks in Mississippi are a bunch of pikers. I took the trouble to look up the decision in Barker v. Wingo to read about how the U.S. Supreme Court gave everyone a good talking to about violating our right to a speedy trial.

Holy crap! Barker awaited his trial for more than five years, so that the State could try his accomplice first, three times. The U.S. Supremes ruled in 1972 that Barker had not been denied the right to a speedy trial.

No more incandescent light bulbs. No more right to a speedy trial.

Mama.