weighs in favor of Horton. 2. Reasons for the Delay ¶23. The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that once the delay is found to be presumptively prejudicial, “the burden shifts to the prosecutor to produce evidence justifying the delay and to persuade the trier of fact of the legitimacy of the reasons.” State v. Ferguson, 576 So.2d 1252, 1254 (Miss.1991). The State has shown and the lower court found that the overwhelming majority of the delay in this case was caused by Horton and his co-defendant Berry. After thirteen months as co-indictees, Horton made a motion for severance. Until then, the ease was delayed because of two continuances proposed by Berry, the withdrawal of attorneys for Berry, and bumped because of a congested docket. Taylor v. State, 672 So.2d 1246, 1259 (Miss.1996)(<HOLDING>); see also Herring, 691 So.2d at 953 (holding
holding that change of defense attorneys is beyond control of state and therefore any resulting delay is charged against defendant holding that the state could not under any circumstances be charged for the delay during the period the defendant was held after his arrest for and until his conviction on felony charges in another jurisdiction holding that the delay is presumptively prejudicial does not necessarily mean the first factor weighs against the state but requires further consideration of the extent of the delay beyond this period holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state 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