Analyzing the four-point test of Barker v Wingo, the Court found that
1.Five years was well beyond what courts in similar cases have found to be an "extraordinary" lapse in time.
2. The reason for delay by the government was not reasonable, even if done to 'conserve resources'; and, that "If authorities choose to ignore available leads about a suspect's whereabouts in favor of other tasks, they may nonetheless be found negligent within the context of the speedy trial right". "Our focus is...whether the government has diligently used the information available to it".
3. That "it was plain that the government was not reasonably diligent in its pursuit of Velazquez."
4. The Court rejected the government's argument that the defendant was not prejudiced given the wiretap nature of the prosecution proofs, noting it implies the tapes are all the evidence Velazquez would rely upon in presenting his defense and that it puts the burden to show prejudice on Velazquez.