State v. Bridgeford, 298 Neb. 156

Gerard and Judith Bridgeford were charged June 3, 2014 with multiple counts of possession with intent to deliver marijuana (and related aiding/abetting counts).
Initial trial was set for September 24, 2014; both defendants repeatedly moved to continue status hearings and trial dates through a series of motions and status conferences extending into 2016.
Both filed motions to suppress on October 6, 2014; those motions were denied January 5, 2015. Numerous later continuances were requested by the defendants for discovery and depositions.
After stating they were ready to proceed on April 25, 2016, the court set trial for December 12, 2016. Defendants moved for absolute discharge in Sept./Oct. 2016 alleging statutory and constitutional speedy-trial violations.
The district court denied discharge, concluding under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207(4)(b) the defendants permanently waived the 6-month statutory speedy-trial right because their continuances moved trial dates beyond the statutory period; defendants appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants permanently waived their statutory 6-month speedy-trial right under § 29-1207(4)(b)	State: waiver occurs where defendant-requested continuance moves trial date past 6 months	Bridgeford(s): waiver should not apply because continuances were for definite periods and for legitimate reasons, not bad faith	The court held waiver is automatic if a defendant-requested continuance results in a trial date beyond 6 months, regardless of motive or whether the continuance was definite or indefinite
Whether defendants’ constitutional speedy-trial or due process rights were violated by post-ready delay	State: no constitutional violation shown; delay before April 25 was attributable to defendants and no prejudice alleged after that date	Bridgeford(s): 231-day delay after April 25 violated constitutional speedy-trial/due process rights	The court found no merit to constitutional claims (no asserted prejudice); a separate due-process oppressive-delay claim was not preserved and thus not considered

State v. Gill, 297 Neb. 852 (2017) (interpreting § 29-1207(4)(b) to create a permanent waiver when defendant continuances push trial past six months)
State v. Vela-Montes, 287 Neb. 679 (2014) (discussing excludable periods and speedy-trial computations)
State v. Mortensen, 287 Neb. 158 (2014) (same: treatment of excludable delays and continuances)
State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133 (2009) (concurring opinion prompted legislative amendment creating permanent-waiver language)
State v. Wells, 277 Neb. 476 (2009) (rules on excluding continuances of pretrial conferences)
Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339 (1994) (federal authority on harmless delay and prejudice in speedy-trial context)