Search for: "Barker v. Wingo" Results 21 - 40 of 69
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Nov 2013, 1:18 pm
 A delay of one year or more is presumptively prejudicial and requires a searching inquiry into the four Barker v. [read post]
15 Jan 2013, 8:26 am by Rory Little
”  But Justices Breyer and Sotomayor both suggested that, if the state got this factor in the Barker v. [read post]
13 Nov 2012, 6:37 pm by Zachary Spilman
Because the delay is facially unreasonable, we examine the four factors set forth in Barker v. [read post]
17 Aug 2012, 8:58 am by Randall Hodgkinson
Accordingly, the loss of the video should be weighed at least somewhat more heavily against the State than the inferred prejudice recognized in Doggett.The COA went on to review the Barker v. [read post]
1 May 2012, 8:45 pm by Matthew Bush
Eldridge or the test employed in Barker v. [read post]
In Peter's Excellent Motion to Dismiss he argued that Barker v Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) was controlling and that the following factors must be considered:1. length of delay - nearly four years, any time over one year between indictment and arrest is presumptively prejudicial2. reason for the delay - here government negligence to move the case forward and even gained a tactical advantage because the Defendant no longer had possible witnesses available for his defense.3. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 12:00 pm by Michael M. O'Hear
The government gets the very malleable and forgiving multifactor test of Barker v. [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 7:12 am by Zachary Spilman
Finally, the dissent applied the four-factor test set forth in Barker v. [read post]
26 May 2011, 3:55 pm
Wingo (1972), and applied by our New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. [read post]
6 May 2010, 2:02 pm by Dwight Sullivan
Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) and Doggett v. [read post]