U.S. v. Birge, 52 M.J. 209

Miscellaneous Matters: Speedy Trial: Article 10

1. the test for assessing an alleged violation of Article 10 is whether the government has acted with “reasonable diligence” in proceeding to trial, and failure to proceed with reasonable diligence would constitute a violation of Article 10 even if the government has complied with RCM 707 and the Sixth Amendment
2. in determining whether a particular set of circumstances violates a servicemember’s speedy trial rights under Article 10, it is appropriate to consider four factors in the context of Article 10’s “immediate steps” language and “reasonable diligence” standard: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason[s] for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion of the right; and, (4) prejudice to the defendant
3. the facts were insufficient to raise the issue of an Article 10 violation where: (1) appellant made no demand for speedy trial or to be released from pretrial confinement; (2) appellant made no motion to dismiss or any other motion for relief predicated on a lack of speedy trial; (3) appellant entered a pretrial agreement within 2 days of trial; (4) appellant received credit for his pretrial confinement on his sentence; (5) there is no evidence of willful or malicious conduct on the part of the government to create the delay; and, (6) appellant suffered no prejudice to the preparation of his case as a result of the delay