No violation of the defendant’s speedy trial right occurred. The court began by finding that the delay of two years and 10 months was extensive enough to trigger consideration of the other speedy trial factors. Rejecting the defendant’s argument to the contrary, the court held that with respect to the second factor--reason for the delay--the defendant has the burden of producing evidence establishing a prima facie case that the delay resulted from the neglect or willfulness of the State. Once that showing is made, the burden shifts to the State to rebut the defendant’s evidence. Here, the defendant failed to make the prima facie showing. The court noted that between the time of arrest and trial, the defendant was represented by five different attorneys, each of whom needed time to become familiar with the case and that a significant portion of the delay resulted from delays at the State Crime Lab. With respect to the third factor--the defendant’s assertion of a speedy trial right--the court noted that the defendant asserted his right in a timely pro se motion, later adopted by counsel. Turning to the last factor—prejudice--the court noted that the defendant’s primary claims of prejudice were supported by his own testimony and no other evidence. Conceding that the trial court did not find his testimony credible, the defendant argued that the trial court failed to give adequate consideration to the prejudice inherent in pretrial incarceration. The court was unpersuaded, noting that during the time that he was incarcerated on the present charges he also was incarcerated on unrelated felony charges. Balancing the factors, the court found no speedy trial violation.