ÿWPCw0 …# V %a 0Žg4õ  0Ò 0Dê 0J. 0Tx w@Ì 0^ j 0hr 0rÚ 0|L 0†È 0N 1uÞ U>SU,‘ 0d½U>!U,_U6‹B)ÁDCê AM-U*zC¤çèûïãjÒh<¤1©TÚ."@ Bb Ï UN" 0@£$kã$ D3N'v~'vÓÿ( AOÒ.Æ!/ 0Dç/ D/+0 BZ0˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 X(fo‹$¡¡Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xb#XXXÔÔ€Xb#XXXb#ÔÓ  ÓGav ÔXp3|x0%(‚(3ÈÔ$¤¤Ý ƒo‹!ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X§&XXXÔÔ€X§&XXX§&ÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô %%%e%%D %!%E"%#%Ó€-%.%2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<èÀ( 9Z &Courier Regular< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier Regular< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd€6%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial 9Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌMayÏ6,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝFor€our€purposes,€"presentment"€is€synonymous€withÏ"indictment."Ì ÞÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý407€U.S.€514€(1972).Ì åÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý493€S.W.2d€81€(Tenn.€1973).Ì `Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€defendant€testified€that€in€1984€he€learned€of€theÏWilliamson€County€charges€when€someone€mailed€copies€of€theÏð ðwarrantsðð€to€him€in€Alabama.Ì ^Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTennessee€adopted€the€Compact€in€1970.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„31„101€(1990).€€Alabama€adopted€the€Compact€in€1978.€€Ala.€Code€ððÏ15„9„80€(1995).Ì ûÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€Court€has€held€that€under€the€Compact,€the€defendant€hasÏthe€burden€of€giving€notice€to€the€receiving€state€of€his€or€herÏrequest€under€Article€III€of€the€Compact€for€prompt€disposition€ofÏthe€charges.€€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,€774€S.W.2d€590€(Tenn.€1989).€€StrictÏcompliance€with€the€notice€and€certification€procedures€outlinedÏin€the€Compact€is€required.€€òòState€v.€Grizzellóó,€584€S.W.2d€678Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).€€Since€the€defendant€did€not€comply€withÏthe€procedures€outlined€in€the€Compact,€the€provisions€of€thatÏstatutory€remedy€did€not€apply.Ì 'Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€fact€that€the€females€were€raped€was€not€admitted€asÏevidence€in€the€trial€of€this€cause.Ì JÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€first„degree€murder€cases€the€protection€offered€by€aÏstatute€of€limitation€does€not€exist€since€there€is€no€statute€ofÏlimitation€for€that€crime.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„2„101(a)Ï(1990):€€"A€person€may€be€prosecuted,€tried€and€punished€for€anÏoffense€punishable€with€death€or€by€imprisonment€in€theÏpenitentiary€during€life,€at€any€time€after€the€offense€isÏcommitted."Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý407€U.S.€514€(1972)Ô€"¼Ô.Ô€"XÔÌ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝOvercrowded€court€dockets€or€simple€lack€of€diligence€fallÏinto€this€category.Ì d ÅÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝDelays€which€fall€into€this€category€include€those€casesÏwhere€the€complexity€of€the€case€reasonably€requires€more€time€toÏprepare€for€trial,€or€where€the€delay€is€necessary€to€performÏfurther€investigation€or€to€locate€a€missing€witness,€for€example.Ì KÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝGood€faith€attempts€to€plea„bargain€or€repeated€defenseÏrequests€for€continuances€are€examples€of€this€category.€€òòSeeóó,Ïòòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€771€S.W.2d€387€(Tenn.€1989),€òòcert.€deniedóóÏ497€U.S.€1031€(1990);€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€781€S.W.2d€873€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1989),€òòoverruled€on€other€grounds€byóó,€òòState€v.ÏHowingtonóó,€907€S.W.2d€403€(Tenn.€1995).Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò aÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝHowever,€an€accused€who€is€unaware€that€charges€are€pendingÏagainst€him€or€her,€as€is€often€the€case€where€an€indictment€hasÏbeen€sealed€and€not€served,€cannot€be€penalized€for€his€or€herÏfailure€to€assert€the€speedy€trial€right.€€òòDoggettóó,€112€S.€Ct.€atÏ2691;€€òòsee€alsoóó€òòWright€v.€Stateóó,€405€S.W.2d€177,€180€(Tenn.€1966);ÏòòState€v.€Wallaceóó,€648€S.W.2d€264,€267€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).Ì3333'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€6‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€·AXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÙ€€ÙßL€&(%;+'h| ä` ‚- `€€Lßà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€For€PublicationÌà àà àAppelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àFiled:€€May€6,€1996Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€01„S„01„9501„CC„00015Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌTERRY€E.€WOODà àà àà àà à)à àWilliamson€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellantà àà àà à)à àDonald€P.€Harris,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌJohn€H.€Henderson,€Jr.à àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌPublic€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌMaurine€C.€Hatchettà àà àà àà àChristina€S.€ShevalierÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌFranklin,€TNà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TNÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€D.€BaughÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMark€PuryearÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€DistrictÏAttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFranklin,€TNÌÌÌà@ àÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓAFFIRMEDà àà àà àà àà à€à àà àà àà àà àBirch,€J.ÌÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓÓÓ›à àWe€granted€the€application€of€Terry€E.€Wood,€theÏdefendant,€for€permission€to€appeal€in€order€to€resolve€an€issueÏof€first€impression€in€Tennessee:€€whether€the€return€of€a€sealedÏpresentment× ƒ) ××  ×€engages€an€accused€person's€speedy€trial€rights€underÏthe€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€ArticleÏI,€ðð€9,€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€After€a€thoroughÏexamination€of€the€record€and€careful€consideration€of€the€issue,Ïwe€conclude,€for€reasons€appearing€below,€that€the€return€of€aÏpresentment,€whether€sealed€or€unsealed,€whether€the€accompanyingÏòòcapiasóó€is€executed€or€unexecuted,€is€a€formal€accusation€thatÏengages€constitutional€speedy€trial€provisions.€€Thus,€we€mustÏapply€the€criteria€of€òòBarker€v.€Wingoóó× ƒ* ××  ×€and€òòState€v.€Bishopóó× ƒ+ ××  ×€toÍdetermine€whether€the€thirteen„year€delay€in€this€case€deprivedÏthe€appellant€of€his€constitutional€speedy€trial€rights.€€We€findÏthat€there€was€no€such€deprivation€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals.ÌÌà àA€Williamson€County€grand€jury€in€September€1979Ïreturned€a€presentment€charging€the€defendant€with€the€murder€ofÏJoseph€R.€Henderson.€€The€presentment€as€returned€was€sealed,€andÏa€òòcapiasóó€was€issued€for€the€defendant,€who€was€then€in€the€custodyÏof€Alabama€authorities€awaiting€trial€on€a€different€murderÏcharge.€€The€State€knew€the€circumstances€of€the€defendant'sÏdetention€in€Alabama;€however,€the€òòcapiasóó€was€not€executed€becauseÏthe€Williamson€County€authorities€believed€that€Alabama€wouldÏsentence€the€defendant€to€death€by€electrocution.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€was€convicted€on€the€Alabama€charge€andÏsentenced€to€a€prison€term.€€Thus,€in€1983,€the€defendant€wasÏalive€and€still€in€the€custody€of€the€Alabama€authorities.€€InÏNovember€1983,€the€Circuit€Court€of€Williamson€County€placed€theÏcause€on€the€"retired€docket."€€For€reasons€not€clearly€shown€inÏthe€record,€the€Williamson€County€sheriff's€department€lodged€aÍdetainer€against€the€defendant€in€March€1984.€€Although€aware€ofÏthe€detainer,× ƒ, ××  ×€the€defendant€did€not€pursue€a€speedy€trial€underÏthe€Interstate€Compact€on€Detainers× ƒ- ××  ×€at€that€time.ÌÌà àIn€June€1989,€Alabama€offered€the€defendant€parole.€ÏThis€parole€was,€however,€conditioned€on€the€defendant's€agreementÏto€submit€to€the€Tennessee€detainer.€€The€defendant€refused€andÏcontinued€serving€the€Alabama€sentence.ÌÌà àIn€March€1990,€the€defendant€wrote€the€Williamson€CountyÏcourt€clerk€inquiring€about€the€detainer;€the€clerk€did€notÏrespond.€€On€September€4,€1990,€the€defendant€filed€a€òòpro€seóóÏmotion€for€a€speedy€trial.€€The€trial€court€docketed€this€motionÍfor€hearing€despite€the€fact€that€the€defendant€failed€to€followÏthe€required€procedure.× ƒ. ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€conducted€a€hearing€on€the€motion€onÏSeptember€10,€1990.€€The€defendant€was€not€present,€and€no€one€hasÏoffered€a€clear€recollection€of€those€proceedings.€€In€any€event,Ïthe€docket€contains€an€entry:€€"detainer€lifted."ÌÌà àSubsequently,€the€District€Attorney€General€investigatedÏfurther€and€determined€that€the€case€should€be€prosecuted.€€HeÏthen€initiated€procedures€under€the€Interstate€Compact€Act€toÏreturn€the€defendant€to€Williamson€County€for€trial.€€TrialÏcommenced€February€9,€1993,€almost€fourteen€years€after€the€returnÏof€the€presentment.ÌÌà àAt€trial,€the€victim's€girlfriend€testified€that€she€andÏthe€victim€had€planned€to€meet€the€night€the€victim€disappeared.€ÏWhen€he€did€not€appear,€she€began€searching€for€him.€€She€droveÏfirst€to€a€bar€where€he€had€been€when€he€last€spoke€with€her€byÏtelephone€that€afternoon.€€When€she€did€not€see€his€van€there,€sheÏpulled€into€a€trailer€park€across€the€street.€€As€she€was€pullingÏinto€the€trailer€park,€the€victim's€van€was€pulling€out.€€TheÏvictim€was€driving,€and€a€man€she€later€identified€as€theÏdefendant€was€in€the€passenger€seat.€€She€made€eye€contact€withÏthe€victim;€he€made€a€hand€motion€as€though€to€wave€her€away.€€SheÏtried€to€follow€the€van,€but€lost€it.€€She€never€saw€the€victimÏalive€again.€€Ìà àLater€that€evening,€the€defendant€was€observed€inÏpossession€of€the€victim's€van€and€was€wearing€certain€items€ofÏclothing€known€to€belong€to€the€victim.€€The€defendant€told€hisÏgirlfriend€that€he€had€to€"bust"€someone.€€Within€a€day€or€so€ofÏthe€victim's€disappearance,€the€defendant€accosted€and€detainedÏtwo€females€in€Barren€County,€Kentucky.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€During€the€encounter,€theÏdefendant€bragged€to€them€that€he€had€killed€the€victim.€€TheÍfemales€assisted€him€in€disposing€of€some€of€the€victim's€personalÏpossessions.€€These€items€were€recovered€when€they€escaped€fromÏthe€defendant€and€took€investigators€to€the€site€where€the€itemsÏhad€been€thrown.€€Several€days€later,€the€victim's€girlfriend€sawÏa€newspaper€article€that€included€a€photograph€of€the€defendant.€ÏShe€immediately€contacted€the€authorities€and€told€them€theÏphotograph€depicted€the€man€she€had€seen€with€the€victim€the€nightÏhe€disappeared.€€When€the€defendant€was€arrested€on€charges€ofÏrape€and€kidnapping€of€the€two€females,€the€authoritiesÏconfiscated€a€òòColtóó€.38€revolver.€€During€questioning,€theÏdefendant€gave€Kentucky€police€two€versions€of€how€he€had€acquiredÏthe€victim's€van.€€First,€he€said€he€found€the€van€on€the€side€ofÏthe€road€near€I„65€with€the€keys€inside.€€He€said€later€that€theÏvictim€had€gone€on€a€trip€and€had€left€the€van€with€him.€€TheÏvictim's€body€was€discovered€in€Williamson€County€ten€days€afterÏhis€disappearance.€€He€had€been€shot€three€times„„twice€in€theÏhead€and€once€in€the€abdomen.€€ÌÌà àSignificantly,€none€of€the€State's€witnesses€hadÏdifficulty€recalling€the€facts€surrounding€the€victim'sÏdisappearance;€however,€in€the€period€between€presentment€andÍtrial,€one€non„critical€witness€(a€criminal€investigator)€died.€ÏNeither€the€òòColtóó€.38€revolver€seized€from€the€defendant€at€theÏtime€of€his€arrest€in€Kentucky€nor€the€bullet€fragments€recoveredÏfrom€the€victim's€body€could€be€located;€nevertheless,€theÏballistic€report€from€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€wasÏavailable.ÌÌà àThe€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€first„degree€murderÏand€possession€of€a€firearm€in€the€commission€of€murder.€€InÏaddition€to€life€imprisonment€for€the€murder€conviction,€the€trialÏcourt€imposed€a€five„year€sentence€for€the€firearm€violation„„toÏbe€served€consecutively€to€the€other€Alabama€and€TennesseeÏconvictions.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€makes€no€challenge€to€the€convictingÏevidence;€rather,€he€insists€that€the€State,€by€permittingÏapproximately€thirteen€years€to€pass€between€presentment€andÏtrial,€violated€his€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€a€speedy€trial.€€HeÏurges€further€that€the€lengthy€delay€violated€his€due€processÏrights€and€requires€dismissal€of€the€charges.ÌÌà àThe€State€contends€that€because€the€presentment€wasÏsealed,€the€period€within€which€the€defendant€should€have€filedÏfor€a€speedy€trial€did€not€begin€to€run€until€the€execution€of€theÏòòcapiasóó€on€October€9,€1992,€thereby€making€the€òòBarkeróó€balancingÏtest€inapplicable.€€The€State€reasons€that€because€the€speedyÏtrial€clause€does€not€apply,€the€issues€must€be€analyzed€under€dueÏprocess€criteria.€€To€prevail€under€such€criteria,€the€StateÏasserts,€the€defendant€must€prove€that€actual€prejudice€resultedÏfrom€the€delay.€€The€rationale€underlying€this€requirement,€theÏState€says,€is€that€the€purpose€for€the€speedy€trial€provisions€ofÏour€state€and€federal€constitutions€is€to€prevent€oppressiveÏpretrial€incarceration,€protect€a€defendant€from€the€humiliationÏand€anxiety€associated€with€a€public€accusation,€and€avoidÏimpairment€of€a€defendant's€defense€caused€by€a€lengthy€delay.€ÏHence,€a€defendant€in€a€sealed€presentment€case€is€not€exposed€toÏoppressive€pretrial€incarceration€and,€because€he€is€unaware€ofÏthe€pending€charges,€is€not€subject€to€such€anxiety€andÏhumiliation.€€Moreover,€the€State€argues€that€the€statutes€ofÏlimitation€protect€an€accused€from€having€to€defend€against€staleÍcharges.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€The€conclusion€should€be,€the€State€asserts,€that€theÏconviction€must€be€affirmed€since€actual€prejudice€was€not€proven.ÌÌà àWe€first€address€the€issue€of€whether€a€sealedÏpresentment€is€sufficient€to€require€a€speedy€trial€analysis.€€InÏour€view,€the€State's€position€conflicts€with€the€Sixth€AmendmentÏto€the€U.S.€Constitution€and€with€Article€I,€ðð€9,€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution.€€Both€constitutional€provisions€apply,€by€their€ownÏterms,€to€persons€"accused"€in€a€"criminal€prosecution."€€Clearly,Ïto€be€an€"accused"€one€must€be€faced€with€a€"formal€accusation."€ÏThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€the€Sixth€AmendmentÏguarantee€to€a€speedy€trial€does€not€apply€until€the€defendantÏbecomes€an€"accused."€€òòUnited€States€v.€Marionóó,€404€U.S.€307,€313Ï(1971).€€Specifically,€"it€is€òòeitheróó€a€formal€indictment€òòoróóÏinformation€òòoróó€else€the€actual€restraints€imposed€by€arrest€andÏholding€to€answer€a€criminal€charge€that€engage€the€particularÏprotections€of€the€speedy€trial€provision€of€the€Sixth€Amendment."€Í404€U.S.€at€320€(emphasis€added).€€This€Court€has€also€noted€thatÏno€speedy€trial€rights€arise€until€after€formal€accusation,€òòeitheróóÏby€òòarrestóó€or€by€òògrand€jury€actionóó.€€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€614€S.W.2dÏ352,€353€(1981).€€Moreover,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„2„104€(1990)Ïexpressly€provides€that€a€prosecution€is€commenced€by€finding€anÏindictment€or€presentment.€€We€have€never€distinguished€betweenÏsealed€and€unsealed€indictments.ÌÌà àA€sealed€indictment€is€no€different€from€an€unsealedÏindictment€except€that€it€is€not€subject€to€inspection€by,€orÏdisclosure€to,€the€public€until€the€defendant€is€arrested€or€makesÏbail.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„13„111,€„112.€€It€still€has€theÏeffect€of€formally€charging€the€defendant€with€a€crime.ÌÌà àAdditionally,€the€majority€of€federal€courts€that€haveÏconsidered€the€issue€have€applied€the€speedy€trial€analysis€toÏsealed€indictment€cases.€€òòSee,óó€òòe.g.óó,€òòUnited€States€v.€Shellóó,€961ÏF.2d€138,€143„45€(9th€Cir.€1992);€òòUnited€States€v.€Lewisóó,€907€F.2dÏ773,€774€(8th€Cir.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€498€U.S.€906€(1990);€òòUnitedÏStates€v.€Mitchellóó,€769€F.2d€1544,€1547„48€(11th€Cir.€1985),€òòcert.Ïdeniedóó,€474€U.S.€1066€(1986);€òòUnited€States€v.€Aloóó,€439€F.2d€751Í(2nd€Cir.),€òòcert.€denied,óó€404€U.S.€850€(1971);€òòUnited€States€v.ÏSheltonóó,€820€F.€Supp.€461€(W.D.€Mo.€1992);€òòUnited€States€v.ÏRogersóó,€781€F.€Supp.€1181€(S.D.€Miss.€1991).€€òòBut€seeóó€òòUnitedÏStates€v.€Watsonóó,€599€F.2d€1149,€1156,€òòmodified€byóó€òòUnited€StatesÏv.€Museóó,€690€F.2d€15€(2nd€Cir.€1979),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€450€U.S.€984Ï(1981)(right€to€speedy€trial€attaches€not€when€sealed€indictmentÏfiled,€but€when€unsealed);€òòUnited€States€v.€Hayóó,€527€F.2d€990Ï(10th€Cir.€1975),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€425€U.S.€935,€994€n.4€(1976)(sinceÏindictment€sealed€defendant€suffered€neither€restraint€on€hisÏliberty€nor€public€accusation€before€his€arrest).€€ÌÌà àIn€our€opinion,€the€better€reasoned€cases€recognize€thatÏeven€though€a€defendant€under€a€sealed€indictment€does€not€sufferÏrestraint€on€his€or€her€liberty€or€the€anxiety€and€humiliationÏthat€accompany€a€public€accusation,€such€a€defendant€still€has€aÏstrong€interest€in€preserving€his€or€her€ability€to€prepare€forÏtrial.€€Lengthy€delays€following€the€issuance€of€an€indictment,Ïwhether€sealed€or€not,€may€directly€affect€this€ability€to€prepareÏfor€trial.€€Faded€memories,€erosion€or€loss€of€potentiallyÏexculpatory€evidence,€and€loss€of€potentially€favorable€witnessesÏare€all€possible€results€of€a€lengthy€delay.€€€ÌÌà àWe€conclude,€accordingly,€that€the€return€of€aÏpresentment,€whether€sealed€or€not,€is€a€"formal€accusation"€suchÏas€would€engage€an€accused€person's€speedy€trial€rights.ÌÌà àIt€remains€for€us€to€determine€whether€the€defendant'sÏspeedy€trial€rights€were€violated.€€In€òòBarker€v.€Wingoóó,× ƒ1 ××  ×€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€adopted€a€balancing€test€to€determine€whetherÏa€defendant's€right€to€a€speedy€trial€had€been€denied€under€theÏSixth€Amendment.€€This€test€involves€the€balancing€of€fourÏfactors:€(1)€the€length€of€the€delay;€(2)€the€reason€for€theÏdelay;€(3)€the€defendant's€assertion€of€his€right€to€a€speedyÏtrial;€and€(4)€the€prejudice€resulting€to€the€defendant€from€theÏdelay.€€We€adopted€the€òòBarkeróó€analysis€in€òòState€v.€Bishopóó,€493ÏS.W.2d€81,€83„85€(Tenn.€1973).€€ÌÌà àRegarding€the€first€factor,€length€of€the€delay,€theÏòòBarkeróó€Court€noted€that€the€length€of€the€delay€is€the€triggeringÏmechanism€that€will€necessitate€the€consideration€of€the€otherÍthree€factors.€€"'Until€there€is€some€delay€which€is€presumptivelyÏprejudicial,€there€is€no€necessity€for€inquiry€into€the€otherÏfactors€that€go€into€the€balance.'"€€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€614€S.W.2dÏ352,€355€(Tenn.€1981)(quoting€òòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€530).€€TheÏreasonableness€of€the€length€of€the€delay€depends€on€theÏcomplexity€of€the€case.€€407€U.S.€at€530„31.€€More€recently,€theÏCourt€noted€in€òòDoggett€v.€United€Statesóó€that€"the€presumption€thatÏpretrial€delay€has€prejudiced€the€accused€intensifies€over€time."€Ï112€S.€Ct.€2686,€2691€(1992).€€In€this€case,€the€delay€of€thirteenÏyears€is,€as€the€State€concedes,€clearly€sufficient€to€require€anÏanalysis€of€the€remaining€three€factors.€€This€factor€weighsÏfavorably€for€the€defendant.ÌÌà àThe€second€òòBarkeróó€factor,€reason€for€the€delay,Ïgenerally€falls€into€one€of€four€categories:€(1)€€intentionalÏdelay€to€gain€a€tactical€advantage€over€the€defense€or€delayÏdesigned€to€harass€the€defendant;€(2)€bureaucratic€indifference€orÏnegligence;× ƒ2 ××  ×€(3)€delay€necessary€to€the€fair€and€effectiveÍprosecution€of€the€case;× ƒ4 ××  ×€and€(4)€delay€caused,€or€acquiesced€in,Ïby€the€defense.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€The€first€type,€intentional€delay,€is€weighedÏheavily€against€the€State.€€The€second€type,€negligent€delay,€isÏalso€weighed€against€the€State€although€not€as€heavily€asÏdeliberate€delay.€€The€third€type€of€delay€is,€by€definition,Ïjustifiable€and€is€not€weighed€against€either€party.€€The€fourthÏtype€of€delay,€which€is€caused€or€acquiesced€in€by€the€defendant,Ïis€weighed€against€the€defendant.€€Ìà àThe€delay€in€this€case€resulted€from€gross€negligence€byÏthe€State.€€The€District€Attorney€General€testified€that€he€knewÏthe€defendant€was€in€custody€in€Alabama€on€another€charge€when€theÏpresentment€was€issued€in€September€1979.€€The€case€came€up€forÏdocket€call€several€times€over€the€course€of€the€years€until€itÏwas€retired€in€November€1983.€€During€this€entire€period,€theÍState€knew€that€the€defendant€was€in€the€custody€of€AlabamaÏauthorities.€€No€explanation€appears€of€record€why€the€StateÏfailed€to€respond€to€the€defendant's€1990€written€request€for€aÏspeedy€trial.€€Not€until€the€District€Attorney€General€learnedÏthat€the€defendant€might€be€granted€parole€in€Alabama€did€theÏState€begin€to€prepare€for€trial.ÌÌà àAlthough€there€is€no€clear€evidence€of€bad€faith€by€theÏState,€a€delay€based€on€the€prediction€that€disposition€of€anotherÏcase€in€a€foreign€jurisdiction€will€serve€to€keep€the€defendantÏincarcerated€will€always€risk€dismissal€if,€in€fact,€the€StateÏultimately€chooses€to€prosecute.€€òòSeeóó€òòArrowsmith€v.€Stateóó,€175ÏS.W.€545,€546„47€(Tenn.€1915);€òòState€v.€Kolbóó,€755€S.W.2d€472Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);€òòState€v.€Wallaceóó,€648€S.W.2d€264€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1980).€€Not€only€does€such€a€delay€impinge€upon€anÏaccused's€ability€to€defend€himself,€but€it€also€affects€hisÏeligibility€for€concurrent€sentencing,€parole,€and€otherÏrehabilitative€programs.€€Here,€there€was€no€valid€reason€for€theÏdelay;€this€factor€must€weigh€in€favor€of€the€defendant.ÌÌà àThe€third€factor,€an€accused€person's€assertion€of€hisÏright€to€a€speedy€trial,€may€or€may€not€play€an€important€role€inÏthe€ultimate€determination€of€whether€that€person€has€beenÏdeprived€of€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial.€€The€òòBarkeróó€CourtÏrejected€an€outright€"demand"€rule,€whereby€failure€to€seek€aÏspeedy€trial€would€result€in€a€waiver€of€that€right.€€407€U.S.€atÏ529„30.€€This€Court€has€likewise€rejected€such€a€rigid€rule.€ÏòòBishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€84.€€The€primary€burden,€after€all,€is€onÏthe€courts€and€prosecutors€to€assure€that€cases€are€brought€toÏtrial.€€òòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€529.€€Nevertheless,€a€defendant'sÏassertion€or€failure€to€assert€the€right€to€a€speedy€trial€is€oneÏfactor€to€consider€in€the€overall€balance€in€determining€whetherÏthe€right€has€been€unconstitutionally€deprived.€€òòId.óó€at€528.€€AÏdefendant's€assertion€of€the€speedy€trial€right€is€entitled€toÏstrong€evidentiary€weight€in€determining€whether€the€right€hasÏbeen€denied,€and€failure€to€assert€the€right€will€make€itÏdifficult€to€prove€it€was€denied.€€òòId.óó€At€531„32;€òòBishopóó,€493ÏS.W.2d€at€85.Ì€€Ìà àFailure€to€assert€the€right€implies€a€defendant€does€notÏactively€seek€a€swift€trial.€€"[œE]vidence›€that€the€defendant€didÍnot€want€a€speedy€trial€would€never€warrant€the€finding€of€aÏconstitutional€violation€except€in€'extraordinary€circumstances.'"€ÏòòBakeróó,€614€S.W.2d€at€355.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€In€this€case,€the€defendant€learned€inÏ1984€that€there€was€a€detainer€against€him.€€Thereafter,€he€didÏnothing€until€1990.€€Even€after€he€learned€that€his€Alabama€paroleÏwould€be€conditioned€on€his€return€to€Tennessee€for€trial€on€theÏmurder€presentment,€he€waited€several€months€before€seeking€legalÏassistance€and€demanding€a€speedy€trial.€€Hence,€we€infer€that€theÏdefendant€did€not€necessarily€want€a€speedy€trial€in€Tennessee.€ÏAfter€all,€had€the€Tennessee€charge€ultimately€died€of€neglect,Ïthere€would€have€been€no€impediment€to€an€unconditional€parole€inÏAlabama.€€Asserting€his€right€to€trial€would€have€prevented€that,Ïand€it€would€have€exposed€the€defendant€to€the€risk€of€a€TennesseeÏconviction.€€We€find€that€the€defendant€acquiesced€in€the€delay€byÏfailing€to€assert€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial.€€This€factor€mustÏweigh€in€favor€of€the€State.ÌÌà àWe€view€the€fourth€factor€as€the€most€important:€whetherÏthe€accused€suffered€prejudice€by€the€delay.€€òòBakeróó,€614€S.W.2d€atÏ355„56€(òòcitingóó€òòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€532;€òòBishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€85);ÏòòState€v.€Thomasóó,€818€S.W.2d€350,€363€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€ÏUsually,€it€is€relatively€easy€to€determine€whether€a€defendantÏhas€been€prejudiced€by€inordinately€long€pretrial€incarceration,Ïor€whether€he€or€she€has€been€subjected€to€the€stress€and€anxietyÏthat€accompany€a€public€accusation€over€an€extremely€long€periodÏof€time.€€It€is€often€extremely€difficult,€however,€for€aÏdefendant€to€€demonstrate€specifically€how€the€delay€has€impairedÏhis€ability€to€defend€himself.€€Courts€have€recognized€thisÏdifficulty€and€consequently€do€not€necessarily€require€a€defendantÏto€affirmatively€prove€particularized€prejudice.€€òòDoggettóó,€112€S.ÏCt.€at€2692;€òòMoore€v.€Arizonaóó,€419€U.S.€871€(1974).€€Furthermore,€€ÓÓÌÌà8 àà8 à[œI]mpairment›€of€one's€defense€is€theÏmost€difficult€form€of€speedy€trialÏprejudice€to€prove€because€time'sÏerosion€of€exculpatory€evidence€andÏtestimony€"can€rarely€be€shown."€Ï..€.€[œE]xcessive›€delayÏpresumptively€compromises€theÏreliability€of€a€trial€in€ways€thatÏneither€party€can€prove€or,€for€thatÏmatter,€identify.€€While€suchÏpresumptive€prejudice€cannot€aloneÏcarry€a€Sixth€Amendment€claimÏwithout€regard€to€the€other€òòBarkeróóÏcriteria,€it€is€part€of€the€mix€ofÍrelevant€facts,€and€its€importanceÏincreases€with€the€length€of€theÏdelay.ÌÓÓÌòòDoggettóó,€112€S.€Ct.€at€2692„93€(citations€omitted).€€ÌÌà àAlthough€we€can€assume€that€he€experienced€some€anxietyÏand€uncertainty€about€the€ultimate€disposition€of€these€charges,Ïnothing€in€the€record€suggests€that€the€defendant's€ability€toÏpresent€his€defense€was€impaired.€€In€fact,€the€defendant€does€notÏclaim€specific€prejudice€resulting€from€the€delay.€ÌÌà àWhile€"affirmative€proof€of€particularized€prejudice€isÏnot€essential€to€every€speedy€trial€claim,"€€112€S.€Ct.€at€2692,Ïand€"the€presumption€that€pretrial€delay€has€prejudiced€theÏaccused€intensifies€over€time,"€òòid.óó€at€2691,€we€believe€the€factsÏin€this€case€are€distinguishable€from€those€in€òòDoggettóó.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€in€òòDoggettóó€was€charged€with€conspiracy€toÏimport€and€distribute€cocaine.€€After€his€indictment€in€1980,ÏDoggett,€unaware€of€the€charges€pending€against€him,€left€theÏcountry.€€He€was€later€arrested€and€imprisoned€in€Panama€onÏanother€matter.€€The€Drug€Enforcement€Agency€(DEA)€learned€ofÍDoggett's€whereabouts€and€requested€expulsion€to€the€UnitedÏStates.€€The€DEA€did€not€pursue€its€request€further€until€afterÏDoggett€had€been€released€and€apparently€abandoned€its€search€soonÏthereafter.€€In€1982,€Doggett€legally€entered€the€United€StatesÏand€lived€openly.€€In€1988,€the€government€conducted€a€routineÏcredit€check€on€fugitives.€€Consequently,€Doggett€was€arrested.€ÏThe€Supreme€Court€held€that€Doggett€had€been€deprived€of€his€rightÏto€a€speedy€trial.€€Ìà àSignificantly,€while€Doggett€was€in€no€way€responsibleÏfor€the€delay€in€his€case,€Wood€deliberately€chose€to€forgo€aÏspeedy€trial€request,€hoping€instead€that€the€Tennessee€chargesÏwould€die€of€neglect.€€He€acquiesced€in€the€delay€from€the€time€heÏlearned€of€the€detainer€in€1984€until€1990,€after€Alabama€hadÏoffered€conditional€parole.€€Any€presumption€of€prejudice€isÏweakened€to€some€degree€by€the€defendant's€acquiescence€in€theÏdelay.€€Therefore,€the€prejudice€factor€weighs€in€favor€of€theÏState.ÌÌà àWe€find€that€the€length€of€the€delay,€on€the€one€hand,Ïand€the€lack€of€any€justifiable€reason€for€such€delay,€on€theÍother€hand,€make€this€a€close€case.€€Nevertheless,€balancing€allÏof€the€òòBarkeróó€factors,€we€conclude€that€ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 à1.à0 àThe€length€of€the€delay€ofÏthirteen€years€was€œpresump›„œtively›€prejudicial€and€weighsÏin€favor€of€the€defendant.ÌÌà8 àà8 à2.à0 àThe€delay€was€caused€by€theÏStateððs€negligence€and€weighsÏin€favor€of€the€defendant.ÌÌà8 àà8 à3.à0 àThe€defendant€failed€to€assertÏhis€right€to€a€speedy€trialÏuntil€eleven€years€had€passed„„€only€after€he€discovered€theÏpending€Tennessee€charge€wasÏjeopardizing€his€parole€inÏAlabama.€€This€factor€weighsÏin€favor€of€the€State.ÌÌà8 àà8 à4.à0 àThe€presumption€of€prejudiceÏwas€weakened€by€theÏdefendant's€acquiescence€inÏthe€delay.€€This€factor€weighsÏin€favor€of€the€State.ÓÓÌÌà àIn€the€balancing€analysis,€the€fourth€factor€is€entitledÏto€the€greatest€weight.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€theÏdefendant€was€not€deprived€of€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial€underÏfederal€or€state€constitutional€principles.ÌÌà àWe€hold€that€the€return€of€a€sealed€presentment€engagesÏan€accused's€right€to€a€speedy€trial.€€The€fact€that€a€defendantÏis€incarcerated€in€another€jurisdiction€will€not€justify€delay€ifÏthe€State€knows€his€whereabouts.€€The€State€is€primarilyÏresponsible€for€prosecuting€an€accused€in€a€timely€manner.€€ForÏdefendants€who€choose€to€risk€that€the€State€will€ultimatelyÏdecline€to€prosecute€them,€their€acquiescence€in€the€delay€byÏfailing€to€assert€their€right€to€a€speedy€trial€may€serve€toÏweaken€any€presumption€of€prejudice,€depending,€of€course,€on€theÏnature€of€the€case€and€the€evidence€presented.€€The€judgment€ofÏthe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€is€affirmed.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àADOLPHO€A.€BIRCH,€JR.,€JusticeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌAnderson,€C.J.ÌDrowota,€J.ÌÌDISSENT:ÌReid,€White,€JJ.Ì