THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IS GUARANTEED BY THE 6TH AMENDMENT AND MADE APPLICABLE TO THE STATES BY THE 14TH AMENDMENT. THE OHIO LEGISLATURE ENACTED THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTES IN 1974 AS AN ATTEMPT TO SPECIFY AND DEFINE AN IMPRECISE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. THE LEGISLATURE SET SPECIFIED TIME LIMITS WITHIN WHICH AN ACCUSED HAD TO BE BROUGHT TO TRIAL AND ENUMERATED EXCEPTIONS THAT WOULD TEMPORARILY EXTEND THOSE LIMITS. REALIZING THAT ALL CONTINGENCIES COULD NOT BE COVERED, THE LEGISLATURE LEFT THE STATUTES SUFFICIENTLY GENERAL TO ALLOW THE COURTS A LIMITED AMOUNT OF DISCRETION TO GIVE TEMPORARY CONTINUANCES. DECISIONS OF THE OHIO SUPREME COURT INTERPRETING THE CONTINUANCE PROVISIONS HAVE SEVERELY COMPROMISED THE STATUTE'S EFFECTIVENESS. HOLDINGS IN STATE V. MACDONALD AND STATE V. LADD, BOTH OF WHICH INVOLVED MULTIPLE CHARGES FILED AGAINST THE ACCUSED, ILLUSTRATE THIS INTERPRETATION. BY FINDING A CONTINUANCE IF THE TRIAL COURT HAS 'REASONABLY' SET THE TRIAL DATE BEYOND THE STATUTORILY PRESCRIBED PERIOD, THE COURT IS IN EFFECT REPEALING THE SPECIFIED TIME LIMITS AND RETREATING TO THE IMPRECISE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD. IN THE COURT'S VIEW, THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE THAT UNDERLIES THE STATUTES IS TO CORRECT THE JUDICIAL PROCESS WHEN IT HAS BEEN AT FAULT IN NOT BRINGING THE ACCUSED TO TRIAL WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME LIMITS. THIS INTERPRETATION MISCONSTRUES THE STATUTE'S PURPOSE OF ENSURING EVERY ACCUSED PERSON HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL. IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO CLARIFY ITS PURPOSES BY LIMITING THE STATUTORY FLEXIBILITY THAT THE COURTS USED TO DILUTE THE PROTECTIONS AFFORDED BY THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTES. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (LWM)