No it doesn’t. “First come, first served” is not embodied in due process because there could be a number of reasons one was charged but not yet — if ever — convicted. Just think how ridiculous it would be. A person has the right to a speedy trial. If he invokes that right and is found guilty and the sentence will be 30 days, but he has to wait until two years from now to be sentenced because someone charged ahead of him was not yet tried and/or convicted, that would turn a 30 day sentence into a two year sentence right off the bat.

There is no way that would be fair.

What it DOES mean is that the government has to follow rules and established procedures in everything it does. It cannot, for example, skip parts of trials, or deny citizens their rights as protected by the Bill of Rights and by law.

A juror in south Florida recently complained she could not convict a man even though she tried very hard but was forced to vote “Not Guilty” because the facts in no way supported the charges. She said she WANTED to convict but had to turn him loose for the irritating fact that he actually wasn’t guilty of breaking any laws.

The result was Due Process.

David for fair treatment

Fair question, but at least it shouldn’t make too much difference since he is still in custody and unless I misunderstood, still facing arson charges.
(Could be saving it for his birthday although it would be nine days late.)

David for a place for everything
and everything in its place