United States v. Thompson

I concur in the result, but write separately to express my conclusion that, under these facts, the delay was not “presumptively prejudicial” and, therefore, did not trigger further inquiry under Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530-31, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972).

This Court has “consistently noted that Article 10 creates a more exacting speedy trial demand than does the Sixth Amendment,” United States v. Mizgala, 61 M. J. 122, 124 (C.A.A.F.2005), without ever explaining the basis for this conclusion. In our earliest decision on this issue, we stated that the congressional hearings on…