id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
inlawrev-29042	M. Schumm, Joel	Recent Developments in Indiana Criminal Law and Procedure	2025	28	.pdf	application/pdf	11457	792	65	In Grimes v. State, a divided Indiana Supreme Court provided guidance about what parties and trial courts must do when continuing cases based on court congestion.5 In Grimes, the defendant objected to the post-congestion trial date and filed a motion for discharge.6 First, trial courts are given deference as to an initial finding of congestion.11 “But if the defendant presents a prima facie case that the court’s congestion finding is inaccurate,” the burden shifts to the trial court to explain why its calendar required continuing the trial.12 If the court fails to meet its burden, the defendant is entitled to have the State’s charge against him dismissed.13 By submitting docket entries showing no other scheduling conflicts with priority over his criminal trial, Grimes met his initial burden.14	cache/inlawrev-29042.pdf	txt/inlawrev-29042.txt