That's most likely true, but I don't see how that excuses keeping someone locked up nine months without trial.
Because it would seem like several of the charges are for legally-independent crimes, I see no reason the state shouldn't schedule for trial some of the charges for which it has ample evidence at hand and for which a conviction is reasonably certain; if he's convicted of such crimes, then he could serve sentence while awaiting trial on the rest.
I must confess to being confused, though: why should it take nine months to process ballistic evidence for trial? What do they have to do--start by prospecting for a lead mine?
Part of the reason may be that the accused has the right to be tried on all known charges at the same time and, if he objects to going to court on just some of the charges, the government cannot force him to do so. This is supposedly to prevent the situation where, when charged with three offenses, the government proceeds with one, gets a conviction, and then, during the sentencing proceedings on the next offense, can argue, "Well, look, he's already a convicted felon. He has a previous conviction and should be punished more severely as a habitual criminal."
Also, with the three-strikes-and-you're-out laws, you could go from no criminal record to life imprisonment as a habitual criminal over just three offenses, if they're prosecuted separately.
At least, that, I understand, is the logic behind the rule of trying all known offenses at the same time, unless the accused waives his rights against it.