Search for: "Barker v. Wingo"
Results 41 - 60
of 84
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jan 2013, 8:01 am
Wingo.) [read post]
24 Aug 2008, 9:18 am
So the first of the four Moreno/Barker v. [read post]
23 Sep 2008, 10:32 am
The Court applied the analytical framework as articulated in Barker v. [read post]
7 Jun 2014, 10:25 am
Supreme Court in 1972 in Barker v. [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 7:57 am
On appeal, the Third Circuit weighed the four Barker v. [read post]
25 May 2007, 11:31 pm
Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). [read post]
1 Apr 2013, 7:34 am
Commonwealth v. [read post]
15 Mar 2012, 2:03 pm
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… [read post]
9 May 2022, 1:35 pm
Wingo. [read post]
13 Oct 2009, 10:33 am
The Court then considered the four-factor test set out in Barker v. [read post]
17 Sep 2007, 6:21 am
The Court must also apply the four-part test articulated in Barker v. [read post]
21 Feb 2017, 9:12 pm
VI; Barker v. [read post]
18 Mar 2015, 12:18 pm
Petersen, 94 Wn.2d 690, 694, 619 P.2d 697 (1980), citing Barker v. [read post]
18 May 2007, 3:18 am
Wingo. [read post]
14 May 2014, 6:45 am
See Barker, 407 U.S. at 531; Cantu v. [read post]
17 Feb 2009, 3:35 pm
In applying the second Barker v. [read post]
28 Aug 2023, 1:16 pm
Wingo, 407 U. [read post]
16 Aug 2023, 7:00 am
Wingo, 407 U. [read post]
23 Oct 2008, 10:54 pm
AFCCA then subjected the delay to the four-part Moreno/Barker v. [read post]
31 May 2008, 12:55 am
United States v. [read post]