THE LANGUAGE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT LIMITS THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL TO THE 'ACCUSED.' IN ONE DECISION, THE SUPREME COURT DETERMINED THAT THE PROVISION DOES NOT APPLY UNTIL AN INDIVIDUAL BECOMES AN ACCUSED, EITHER THROUGH ARREST OR INDICTMENT. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF AN INORDINATELY LONG DELAY BETWEEN COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE AND INDICTMENT, THE COURT MAY DISMISS THE INDICTMENT IF: (1) THE DELAY CAUSED SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL; AND (2) THE DELAY WAS AN INTENTIONAL DEVICE TO GAIN TACTICAL ADVANTAGE OVER THE ACCUSED. THREE REASONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE COURT TO JUSTIFY THESE TWO TESTS OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL PREINDICTMENT DELAY: (1) CONCERN THAT COMPELLING A PROSECUTOR TO FILE PUBLIC CHARGES AS SOON AS THE REQUISITE PROOF HAS BEEN DEVELOPED WOULD IMPAIR THE PROSECUTOR'S ABILITY TO CONTINUE HIS INVESTIGATION; (2) RELUCTANCE TO FORCE PROSECUTORS INTO INITIATING PROCEEDINGS IN DOUBTFUL CASES; AND (3) UNWILLINGNESS TO INTERFERE WITH THE SUBJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PROSECUTOR WHETHER TO BRING CHARGES. THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS USUALLY CONSIDERED THE PRIMARY GUARANTEE AGAINST BRINGING OVERLY STALE CRIMINAL CHARGES, HOWEVER, THE SUPREME COURT DOES ACKNOWLEDGE THAT PREJUDICE AGAINST A DEFENDANT'S CASE CAN RESULT EVEN WITHIN THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. THE SPEEDY TRIALS ACT OF 1974, WHICH REQUIRES THAT AN INDIVIDUAL BE TRIED WITHIN A CERTAIN LENGTH OF TIME AFTER ARREST, MAY HAVE THE EFFECT OF ENCOURAGING PROSECUTORS TO DELAY INDICTMENT OR ARREST IN ORDER TO MEET THE TIME LIMIT FOR TRIAL. THIS COULD RESULT IN ADDED PRESSURE ON THE COURTS TO MAKE DETERMINATIONS REGARDING PROLONGED DELAY DURING THE INVESTIGATIVE PERIOD. (VDA)