In Re Thomas J.

I respectfully dissent. I do not quarrel with the Majority with respect to: (1) its reasoning and conclusion extending to juvenile proceedings in Maryland constitutional due process speedy trial protection (Maj. op. at 57-72); (2) its reasoning and conclusion that the Barker v. Wingo1 factors supply the appropriate analytical paradigm for consideration of a speedy trial issue in the juvenile proceeding context (Maj. op. at 70-73); or, indeed, (3) much of the Majority’s weighing of the Barker v. Wingo factors on the record of the present case (for example, the “length of delay” (Maj. op. at…