One 1970 Mercury Cougar, VIN 0F9111545940 v. Tunica County, 115 So. 3d 792

In March 2000 Tunica County seized three vehicles and $355 from Willie Hampton and filed a civil forfeiture petition; the circuit court stayed discovery pending related federal proceedings.
The forfeiture action lay largely dormant for five years; county filed a new petition in 2004 and the circuit court granted forfeiture in March 2005.
Hampton appealed; the Court of Appeals remanded for the trial court to develop a record applying the Barker speedy-trial factors (length, reason, assertion, prejudice).
On remand, the circuit court scheduled hearings repeatedly; Hampton, incarcerated federally, obtained a writ ad prosequendum but was not transported and participated by telephone at the July 15, 2010 hearing.
At that hearing the trial court permitted only argument, refused witness testimony and documentary evidence (despite Hampton’s pre-filed exhibit and witness lists), and found no speedy-trial violation. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Supreme Court reversed: the trial court had denied Hampton a meaningful opportunity to present evidence of prejudice as required by Barker and the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the judgment. Case remanded for a new evidentiary hearing on the Barker factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether five‑year delay in civil forfeiture violated speedy‑trial right	Hampton: delay violated Barker factors; he suffered prejudice and was denied opportunity to prove it	Tunica County: delay caused by Hampton’s incarceration and prior stay; court’s hearing sufficed	Reversed; trial court denied Hampton meaningful opportunity to present evidence on Barker factors; remand for new evidentiary hearing
Whether parties were allowed to present evidence on remand	Hampton: remand required an evidentiary record (witnesses/documents) to show prejudice	County: argument-only proceeding complied with remand	Held for Hampton — remand required presentation of evidence; arguments alone insufficient
Whether Hampton had due‑process right to be physically present at the hearing	Hampton: had a right to be physically present	County/Ct. of Appeals: no established right in civil forfeiture	Court did not decide as moot — Hampton had been granted writ ad prosequendum by trial court, so physical presence was available under that order
Whether appellate court properly affirmed absence of prejudice	Hampton: appellate finding relied on lack of evidence but record barred evidence	County: appellate ruling correct based on record	Reversed — appellate court erred because the record lacked evidence due to trial court’s refusal to admit it

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (establishing four‑factor speedy‑trial balancing test)
United States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred & Fifty Dollars in U.S. Currency, 461 U.S. 555 (civil forfeiture proceedings are subject to speedy‑trial analysis)
One 1970 Mercury Cougar, VIN No. 0F9111545940 v. Tunica County, 936 So.2d 988 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (prior Court of Appeals decision remanding for Barker analysis)