specified four factors that must be considered in evaluating a speedy trial claim. These are: the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and the prejudice to the defendant.” Id, at 195, 424 A.2d at 257. In Unwin, the record did not “indicate that the defendant fulfilled his responsibility of asserting his right” because the defendant did no more than move to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial and file discovery motions demanding the production of items. Id. at 196, 424 A.2d at 257. In other words, the defendant did not adequately assert his right to a speedy trial. ¶ 12. This Court has held similarly when other defendants have demonstrated little interest in a speedy trial. See State v. Turner, 2013 VT 26, ¶ 11, 193 Vt. 474, 70 A.3d 1027 (<HOLDING>); State v. Vargas, 2009 VT 31, ¶ 15, 185 Vt.
holding that the defendant waived the right to dismissal under  3162a2 when he did not file a motion to dismiss before trial holding that the defendant waived any argument on the issue by failing to oppose a motion to dismiss holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss holding that the trial court did not violate due process in considering the defendants motion to dismiss because the defendant had corrected its error in not serving its motion to dismiss on the plaintiff and because the plaintiff had received adequate time to consider and respond to the arguments made in the motion holding that third factor did not weigh in defendants favor because he filed only single motion to dismiss never demanded immediate trial and did not oppose extensive discovery