IN ADDITION TO THE OBLIGATION TO EXPEDITE CRIMINAL CASES WITHIN 100 DAYS FROM ARREST TO TRIAL, THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT IMPOSES CERTAIN PLANNING FUNCTIONS UNDER TITLES 1 AND 2, WHICH MAY PLACE NEW AND ADDITIONAL BURDENS UPON THE JUDICIARY, COURT STAFF, U.S. ATTORNEYS, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THE ACT CONTAINS MANY PROVISIONS THAT ARE COMPLEX AND AMBIGUOUS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE ACT STATES THAT CASES EXCEEDING THE TIME CONSTRAINTS MUST BE TERMINATED OR CONDITIONS OF RELEASE MUST BE REVIEWED, BUT IT DOES NOT DESIGNATE EXCLUSIONS FOR DELAYS CAUSED BY HEARINGS, APPEALS, COMPETENCY EXAMINATIONS, ETC. STATUTORY PROBLEMS ALSO ARISE CONCERNING THE SECTIONS ON ABSENT WITNESSES, CONTINUANCE, AND ARRAIGNMENT. IMPACT PROBLEMS ARE LIKELY. FOR INSTANCE, IF FEDERAL PROSECUTORS ARE UNDER PRESSURE TO DECLINE PROSECUTION IN FAVOR OF STATE PROSECUTION IN ORDER TO ESCAPE TIME LIMITATIONS, STATE COURTS MAY NOT BE ABLE TO COPE WITH THE INCREASED CRIMINAL CASELOAD. THE TRIAL ITSELF MAY BECOME PERVERTED AS TIME FORMULAS RATHER THAN MAKING THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF THE DEFENDANT THE FOCUS OF CONCERN. IN ORDER TO CIRCUMVENT SOME OF THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF THE ACT, DISTRICT JUDGES SHOULD HESITATE TO ADOPT THE NARROW PRODEFENDANT CONSTRUCTION AND CARRY FIGHTS TO THE COURT OF APPEALS IF NECESSARY; COURT OF APPEALS JUDGES SHOULD GIVE THE ACT A FLEXIBLE CONSTRUCTION REGARDLESS OF ITS LITERAL OR AMBIGUOUS WORDING; AND STATE JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS SHOULD TAKE STEPS TO EXAMINE THEIR LOCAL TRIAL STRUCTURES AND THE NEEDS OF THE PROSECUTION, DEFENSE, AND COMMUNITY AND FORMULATE RULES WITH FLEXIBILITY AND CLARITY BORROWING WHAT IS GOOD FROM THE FEDERAL ACT AND AVOIDING PROBLEMS PROJECTED BY THAT LEGESLATION. (DAG)