<P> A defendant's right to a speedy trial has constitutional and statutory underpinnings in addition to the Speedy Trial Act . Federal statutes of limitations provide a time frame within which charges must be filed . Moreover, Rule 48 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, grants trial courts discretion to dismiss cases that are not brought to trial promptly . </P> <P> Even if a charge is brought within the period provided by the statute of limitations, a defendant may be able to show that preaccusation delay has violated his or her Fifth Amendment due process rights . To obtain a dismissal of the charges by reason of pre-indictment delay, a defendant has the burden of establishing that the government engaged in intentional delay to gain a tactical advantage, and that he suffered actual prejudice . </P> <P> A defendant's rights under the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment are triggered by "either a formal indictment or information or else the actual restraints imposed by arrest and holding to answer a criminal charge ." (As noted above, any delay before this time must be scrutinized under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, not the Sixth Amendment's Speedy Trial Clause . In Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), the Supreme Court set out a four - factor test for determining whether delay between the initiation of criminal proceedings and the beginning of trial violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial . The test requires the court to consider the length of the delay, the cause of the delay, the defendant's assertion of his or her right to a speedy trial, and the presence or absence of prejudice resulting from the delay . </P> <P> In United States v. Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. 302 (1986), where the reason for the 90 - month delay (interlocutory appeals) did not weigh against the government, the Supreme Court held that the possibility of prejudice occasioned by the delay was not sufficient to establish a Sixth Amendment speedy trial violation . Moreover, the courts of appeals routinely reject Sixth Amendment speedy trial challenges in the absence of a showing of prejudice . However, in Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992), the Supreme Court held that an "extraordinary" eight - and - one - half - year delay between the defendant's indictment and arrest, which resulted from the government's "egregious persistence in failing to prosecute (him)," violated his right to a speedy trial even in the absence of "affirmative proof of particularized prejudice ." </P>

Who is responsible for bringing up the lack of a speedy trial