State v. Alexander, 295 Ga. 154

Background

Alfred Alexander was tried in Oct. 2005 for malice murder, felony murder (mistried), and first-degree cruelty to a child; jury convicted him only of cruelty and acquitted on malice. The felony-murder charge resulted in a mistrial.
The State did not promptly retry the felony-murder charge; the case remained off the calendar for nearly eight years and was only restored in Sept. 2013 after a prosecutor discovered the retrial had never occurred.
Meanwhile Alexander was sentenced on the cruelty conviction, unsuccessfully sought a new trial, declined to appeal, and was paroled in June 2009; he effectively lacked counsel for the unresolved felony-murder charge after his trial counsel withdrew.
Alexander moved to dismiss the felony-murder charge for violation of his Sixth Amendment and Georgia speedy-trial rights; the trial court granted the motion in Sept. 2013.
The State appealed, arguing the trial court misapplied the Barker/Doggett speedy-trial framework; the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s balancing.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Alexander's Argument	Held
Whether the nearly 8-year post-mistrial delay raises a presumption of prejudice	Delay did not warrant dismissal; trial court erred in presuming prejudice	Delay (~8 years) is uncommonly long and raises presumption of prejudice	Court: Delay was uncommonly long and raised a presumption of prejudice; factor weighs against State
Who bears blame for the delay	Delay attributable to docket congestion/innocent reasons, not deliberate state misconduct	Delay largely due to negligent inaction by the State (prosecutor failed to restore case)	Court: Majority of delay (over 6 years) attributable to State negligence; weighed heavily against State
Whether Alexander asserted his speedy-trial right timely	Alexander failed to assert the right promptly; this weighs against him	Alexander did not assert earlier due to lack of counsel, incarceration, limited education—mitigating circumstances	Court: Failure to assert weighed against Alexander but only lightly because of mitigation (lack of counsel, incarceration, limited education)
Whether Alexander suffered prejudice from the delay	Little actual prejudice shown; dismissal not warranted	Presumptive prejudice given age of allegations, witness dispersion, investigatory impairment	Court: Actual proof limited but presumptive prejudice substantial; weighed against State
Whether balancing Barker/Doggett factors requires dismissal	Trial court abused discretion in balancing and should not have dismissed	On balance, factors favor dismissal for speedy-trial violation	Court: Trial court’s reasoned balancing was not an abuse of discretion; judgment affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (establishes four-factor speedy-trial balancing test)
Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (explains presumption of prejudice from lengthy, government-caused delay)
State v. Buckner, 292 Ga. 390 (2013) (Georgia standard for reviewing trial court balancing under Barker/Doggett)
Ruffin v. State, 284 Ga. 52 (2008) (treatment of assertion-of-right factor and state negligence)
State v. Pickett, 288 Ga. 674 (2011) (application of Barker factors in Georgia)
State v. Porter, 288 Ga. 524 (2011) (deference to trial court’s factual findings and discretion)
Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81 (2009) (allocation of responsibility for delay; administrative/docket causes)
State v. Johnson, 291 Ga. 863 (2012) (prejudice analysis under Barker/Doggett)
Scandrett v. State, 279 Ga. 632 (2005) (measuring delay from arrest/indictment or mistrial where applicable)