who is responsible for bringing up the lack of a speedy trial
Speedy Trial Act 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."[22] (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.[23] 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.[24]
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution When, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court extended the right to a trial by jury to defendants in state courts, it re-examined some of the standards. It has been held that twelve came to be the number of jurors by "historical accident," and that a jury of six would be sufficient,[5] but anything less would deprive the defendant of a right to trial by jury.[6] The Sixth Amendment mandates unanimity in a federal jury trial. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, while requiring states to provide jury trials for serious crimes, does not incorporate all the elements of a jury trial within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment. Thus, states are not mandated to require jury unanimity, unless the jury has only six members.[7][8][9]