The appellant, Juan Harris, appeals from the denial of his motion to dismiss his indictment on the ground that his constitutional right to a speedy trial had been violated. We conclude, however, that the trial court did not err in denying Harris’s motion, and we thus affirm the trial court’s judgment. To begin the constitutional speedy trial analysis, we note that the approximately five and one-half years from the date of Harris’s arrest to the date the trial court denied Harris’s motion to bar his prosecution is “presumptively prejudicial”1 and thus triggers the four-part balancing test initially set forth in Barker v. Wingo 2 for deciding constitutional speedy trial claims. Under the four-part balancing test, we must consider ” ‘i whether delay before trial was uncommonly long, ii whether the government or the criminal defendant is more to blame for that delay, iii whether, in due course, the defendant asserted the right to a speedy trial, and iv whether he or she suffered prejudice as the delay’s result.’ “ 3 The Supreme Court has stated that none of these four factors is “either a necessary or sufficient condition to the finding of a deprivation of the right of speedy trial. Rather, they are related factors and must be considered together with such other circumstances as may be relevant. In sum, these factors have no talismanic qualities; courts must still engage in a difficult and sensitive balancing process.”4
The length of the delay in this case is significant, with most of it attributable to the State. Moreover, a large portion of the delay attributable to the State is due to the State’s negligence in bringing the case to trial. Thus, even though there is no evidence of the most serious abuse of a deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to prejudice Harris,5 the negligent delay must be weighed against the State.6 The record, however, shows that Harris did not assert his right to a speedy from the time of his arrest in November 20017 until shortly before the hearing on his motion to bar his prosecution in May 2007.8 We conclude that this delay in asserting his right must be weighed against Harris.9
