In Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), the Supreme Court laid down a four-part case-by-case balancing test for determining whether the defendant's speedy trial right has been violated:
Length of delay: A delay of a year or more from the date on which the speedy trial right "attaches" (the date of arrest or indictment, whichever first occurs) was termed "presumptively prejudicial." - Clearly violated.
Reason for the delay: The prosecution may not excessively delay the trial for its own advantage, but a trial may be delayed to secure the presence of an absent witness or other practical considerations. - Clearly violated.
Time and manner in which the defendant has asserted his right: If a defendant agrees to the delay when it works to his own benefit, he cannot later claim that he has been unduly delayed. - The filing of the Civil cases is both de facto and de jure statement against the delay. - Clearly Violated.
Degree of prejudice to the defendant which the delay has caused. - Clearly violated in that the ruling itself is "res ipse loquitur."
~Quod Erat Demonstrandum~
Lol. You cited case where the courts found he had not been deprived of his right to a speedy trial.