State v. Farook

Summary

The court held that the trial court plainly erred by admitting the defendant’s former attorney’s privileged testimony about defense strategy and communications to explain a more than six-year pretrial delay. It further held that the delay was presumptively prejudicial, shifted the burden to the State to explain the delay, and that a defendant may establish speedy-trial prejudice through either actual or presumptive prejudice. The court remanded for reconsideration of the speedy-trial motion using competent evidence and the proper balancing analysis.