Unpublished Dispositiondavid Ovegian, Petitioner-appellant v. William L. Abshire, Respondent-appellee, 802 F.2d 459 (6th Cir. 1986)

BEFORE: KEITH and MARTIN, Circuit Judges; and WEBER, District Judge^* 

ORDER

Ovegian moves for counsel, for in forma pauperis status, and for an evidentiary hearing on appeal from the district court's order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. This appeal has been referred to a panel of the Court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. After an examination of the record and Ovegian's informal brief, this panel agrees unanimously that oral argument is not needed. Rule 34(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Ovegian was convicted by an Oakland County, Michigan jury of conspiracy to commit first degree murder. He received a life sentence. He exhausted his state remedies.

The only issue before the district court was whether Ovegian's speedy trial right was violated. The four factors that must be considered are: the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his rights, and the prejudice to the defendant. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1971). The defendant need not establish prejudice to his case if the other factors dictate that his speedy trial right was violated. Moore v. Arizona, 414 U.S. 25, 26 (1973); Takacs v. Engle, 768 F.2d 122, 128 (6th Cir. 1985).

In the present case, the length of the delay and Ovegian's assertion of his right weigh against the prosecution. However, an examination of the record shows that Ovegian engaged in deliberate tactics to delay trial and manipulate the criminal justice system. Moreover, he was responsible for the murder of the main prosecution witness in this case. So the reasons for delay are almost entirely of his own making.