State v. Bridgeford, 298 Neb. 156

Gerard and Judith Bridgeford were charged on June 3, 2014, with multiple counts related to possession with intent to deliver marijuana. Trials were initially set for September 24, 2014.
Both defendants repeatedly requested continuances and filed pretrial motions (notably motions to suppress filed October 6, 2014), producing multiple rescheduled status hearings and new trial dates through 2016.
The accumulation of continuances and excludable periods moved the trial dates beyond the six-month statutory speedy-trial period in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207(4)(b).
The district court denied motions for absolute discharge, concluding the defendants permanently waived their statutory speedy-trial rights under § 29-1207(4)(b) when their requested continuances pushed trial dates past the six-month period.
Defendants argued waiver should not apply because their continuances were for definite, reasonable purposes and not for gamesmanship; they also raised constitutional speedy-trial and due-process claims.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding statutory waiver applies regardless of the reason or definiteness of the continuance and rejecting the defendants’ constitutional and due-process claims on the record presented.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants permanently waived statutory speedy-trial rights under § 29-1207(4)(b)	State: waiver occurs when a defendant-requested continuance extends trial beyond 6 months	Bridgefords: waiver should not apply because continuances were definite and reasonable (not indefinite or in bad faith)	Waiver applies: statutory waiver is triggered whenever a defendant-requested continuance moves trial beyond 6 months, regardless of reason or definiteness
Whether the delay violated defendants’ constitutional speedy-trial rights	State: delay attributable to defendants’ motions and actions; no constitutional violation	Bridgefords: accumulated delay (231 days after they stated readiness) violated constitutional speedy-trial and due-process rights	No constitutional violation shown; delay after readiness was not shown to have prejudiced defense; due-process claim not preserved for appeal

State v. Gill, 297 Neb. 852 (interpreting § 29-1207(4)(b) to provide a permanent waiver when defendant continuances push trial beyond six months)
State v. Mortensen, 287 Neb. 158 (discussing excludable periods and waiver under the speedy-trial statute)
State v. Vela-Montes, 287 Neb. 679 (same)
State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133 (concurrence prompted statutory amendment creating permanent-waiver rule)
Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339 (framework for prejudice analysis in speedy-trial/delay claims)