context: Where the parties have had the benefit of a hearing on the issue, but the trial court's analysis of the Barker factors is lacking, this Court has found it appropriate to perform a de novo review of the defendant's speedy-trial claim. On the other hand, where the record lacks sufficient evidence to support a proper de novo review, the more appropriate course is to remand to the circuit court to conduct a Barker analysis.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 608 So.2d 1129, 1134
citation_a.parenthetical: reversing and remanding to the trial court for a Barker analysis where the record did not establish the actual reasons for the delays in the defendant's trial
citation_a.sentence: See McGee v. State, 608 So.2d 1129,1134 (Miss.1992) (reversing and remanding to the trial court for a Barker analysis where the record did not establish the actual reasons for the delays in the defendant’s trial).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 577 So.2d 840, 844
citation_b.parenthetical: reversing defendant's conviction due to ineffective assistance of counsel, remanding for a new trial, and directing the trial court on remand to conduct a Barker analysis, where the record on appeal did not allow this Court to determine the cause of the delay in the defendant's previous trial
citation_b.sentence: See also Barnes v. State, 577 So.2d 840, 844 (Miss.1991) (reversing defendant’s conviction due to ineffective assistance of counsel, remanding for a new trial, and directing the trial court on remand to conduct a Barker analysis, where the record on appeal did not allow this Court to determine the cause of the delay in the defendant’s previous trial).