Milner v. State
329 Ga. App. 654
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Milner indicted for one count of aggravated assault in 2002; ten-year delay before trial; case long on administrative dead docket due to Milner’s failure to appear in 2003; various motions and discovery disputes; Milner asserted a speedy-trial claim on May 7, 2012, near trial date; trial court applied Barker v. Wingo factors and denied the motion; appellate court affirmed."
- Milner’s health issues and alleged memory problems were raised but found not to demonstrate actual prejudice; designated delay attributed to state negligence with non-deliberate cause; discovery requests and representations occurred but Milner did not timely demand a speedy trial; the ten-year delay was treated as presumptively prejudicial but not conclusive of prejudice.
- Trial court found the delay was presumptively prejudicial and conducted Barker balancing; court weighed delay leniently on factor 1, slightly against State on factor 2, heavily against Milner for not timely asserting rights on factor 3, and found no prejudice on factor 4; overall denial of speedy-trial claim affirmed.
- Concurrence notes Doggett standard and argues the ten-year delay should influence all Barker factors and supports affirmance without bright-line rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ten-year delay presumptively prejudices Milner. | Milner | State | Yes; delay presumptively prejudicial; Barker analysis required |
| How the Barker factors should be weighed given the extraordinary delay. | Milner | State | Trial court did not abuse discretion in balancing Barker factors; no denial of speedy trial |
| Whether Milner asserted his right to a speedy trial in due course. | Milner | State | Milner waited many years; factor weighed against Milner; due-course assertion not timely |
| Whether there was actual prejudice from the delay. | Milner | State | No proven actual prejudice; anxiety and memory issues not shown to impair defense |
| Whether mitigation could offset the delay due to Milner’s discovery activity and counsel changes. | Milner | State | Mitigation not sufficient to alter result; delay weighed against Milner |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (establishes four-factor Barker balancing framework for speedy-trial claims)
- Goffaux v. State, 313 Ga. App. 428 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011) (delay similar to other cases; no bright-line rule; factors balanced ad hoc)
- Singleton v. State, 317 Ga. App. 637 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012) (no single Barker factor controls; total balance governs outcome)
- Hayes v. State, 298 Ga. App. 338 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) (presumptive prejudice threshold reached with substantial delay)
- Porter v. State, 288 Ga. 524 (Ga. 2011) (describes trial court’s role in Barker factor balancing)
- Pickett v. State, 288 Ga. 674 (Ga. 2011) (articulates weighting for assertion-of-right factor and mitigation considerations)
- Brown v. State, 315 Ga. App. 544 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012) (discusses discovery-related mitigation and defendant’s responsibility for delays)
- Layman v. State, 284 Ga. 83 (Ga. 2008) (delay attributed to government negligence weighed against State)
- Higgins v. State, 308 Ga. App. 257 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011) (discusses prejudice and memory/diminished evidence considerations)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (U.S. 1992) (ten-year delays influence Barker analysis; presumptive prejudice increases with delay)
- Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2009) (flexible Barker balancing not a bright-line rule; delays assessed case-by-case)
- State v. Buckner, 292 Ga. 390 (Ga. 2013) (upholds deferential review of trial court balancing Barker factors)