phrase “unable to stand trial” is that the defendant effectively waives the 180-day limitation “during the time it takes to resolve matters raised by him.” Taylor, 861 F.2d at 321 (citation omitted). The First Circuit, however, has noted that, under certain circumstances, “there is substantially less reason to view the filing of defense motions as open-ended waivers of the [180]-day deadline.” Id. at 322. Thus, the First Circuit “ha[s] held out the possibility... that where a defendant timely advises the court that he or she is claiming protections under the IAD and the court takes more time than is necessary to resolve the defendant’s pretrial motions, then the delay may not be fully excluded from the [180]-day clock.” United States . Smith, 686 S.W.2d 543, 548 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985) (<HOLDING>). Instead, it was the trial court’s sua sponte
holding that when determining whether a delay in prosecution violates a defendants right to a speedy trial courts must consider the length of the delay the reason for the delay whether the defendant asserted his rights and the resulting prejudice to the defendant holding that although the defendant filed a number of motions because the original trial date never changed as a result of those motions no delay could be attributed to the motions holding that the state did not meet its burden under the iad of establishing that the defendants motions and requests for discovery delayed the trial because 1 the record disclosed no reason why those motions could not have been disposed of within a short time after they were filed 2 there was no evidence the process of discovery did in fact delay the trial and 3 the record failed to suggest how those pleadings could have resulted in delay holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion to extend discovery where no effort was made to explain why the requested discovery could not have taken place within the original discovery period holding that the defendants discovery requests were untimely because they were not served in time for the responses to be due before the discovery deadline