State v. Bridgeford, 298 Neb. 156

Gerard and Judith Bridgeford were charged with multiple counts related to possession with intent to deliver marijuana; informations filed June 3, 2014.
Initial trial date was September 24, 2014; both defendants repeatedly moved for continuances and filed pretrial motions (notably motions to suppress filed October 6, 2014).
Multiple status hearings and continuances followed through 2015–2016; trial ultimately set for December 12, 2016 after an April 25, 2016 status hearing where both said they were ready.
Judith filed a motion for absolute discharge on September 9, 2016; Gerard filed the same on October 3, 2016, alleging violation of statutory and constitutional speedy-trial rights.
The district court denied both motions, concluding § 29-1207(4)(b) created a permanent statutory waiver where a defendant-requested continuance moves trial beyond the 6-month statutory period; both defendants appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants permanently waived statutory speedy-trial rights under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207(4)(b)	State: defendants’ continuances moved trial beyond 6 months so waiver applies	Bridgefords: waivers should not apply because continuances were for definite periods and reasonable, not abusive	Court: Waiver provision applies whenever a defendant-requested continuance results in trial beyond 6 months, regardless of reason or whether definite
How to calculate the 6-month speedy-trial clock and excludable periods	State: follow statutory rules excluding filing day and listed excludable periods	Bridgefords: argued some continuances should not count or waiver should not be triggered	Court: count excludes day information filed, add statutory excludable periods; pretrial motions and continuances are excludable as specified
Whether post-ready delay (April 25–trial date) violated constitutional speedy-trial right	Bridgefords: 231-day delay after they were ready prejudiced their constitutional rights	State: earlier delays were defendant-caused; no prejudice shown after readiness	Court: No constitutional speedy-trial violation shown; defendants do not assert prejudice from post-ready delay
Whether Gerard’s due process/oppressive-delay claim was preserved	Gerard: asserted due process claim on appeal	State: claim not raised below	Court: Declined to address due process claim because it was not presented to district court

Pettit v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 291 Neb. 513 (statutory interpretation review is de novo)
State v. Gill, 297 Neb. 852 (§ 29-1207(4)(b) provides permanent waiver regardless of definite or indefinite continuance)
State v. Vela-Montes, 287 Neb. 679 (interpreting waiver provision and excludable periods)
State v. Mortensen, 287 Neb. 158 (same; broad reading of waiver provision)
State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133 (concurring opinion prompted legislative amendment creating waiver)
State v. Wells, 277 Neb. 476 (rules on excludable continuances and pretrial conference exclusions)
Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339 (federal precedent on speedy-trial/delay analysis)
State v. Nadeem, 284 Neb. 513 (preservation rule: appellate courts will not consider issues not raised below)