Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
40 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2002The first step in this analysis is for Craft to satisfy the presumptively prejudicial element under Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972); Smith v. State, 550 So.2d 406, 408 (Miss.1989). 2002The first step in this proposition is for Hicks to satisfy the presumptively prejudicial element under Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972); Smith v. State, 550 So.2d 406, 408 (Miss.1989). | 8 | 8 |
Herring v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Barker, 407 U.S. at 530 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 ; Herring v. State, 691 So.2d 948, 955 (Miss.1997). 1999Herring v. State, 691 So.2d 948, 955 (Miss.1997)(citing Barker, 407 U.S. at 529 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 ). | 3 | 3 |
Spencer v. Stategreen2 sentences2001“This first step under Barker acts as a ‘triggering mechanism.’ Spencer v. State, 592 So.2d 1382, 1387 (Miss.1991); Smith v. State, 550 So.2d 406, 408 (Miss.1989). 2001"This first step under Barker acts as a `triggering mechanism.' Spencer v. State, 592 So.2d 1382, 1387 (Miss.1991); Smith v. State, 550 So.2d 406, 408 (Miss.1989). | 3 | 3 |
Bailey v. Stategreen2 sentences1996"When a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated, the sole remedy is to reverse the conviction and dismiss the charges." Bailey v. State, 463 So.2d 1059, 1064 (Miss. 1985) (citing Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434 , 93 S.Ct. 2260 , 37 L.Ed.2d 56 (1973); Perry v. State, 419 So.2d 194 (Miss. 1982); Turner v. State, 383 So.2d 489 (Miss. 1980)). 1993The length of the delay from arrest to trial was 475 days. [1] In Smith v. State, 550 So.2d 406, 408 (Miss. 1989); Beavers v. State, supra, 498 So.2d 788 (Miss. 1986); Burgess v. State, 473 So.2d 432 (Miss. 1985); Bailey v. State, 463 So.2d 1059, 1062 (Miss. 1985); and Perry v. State, 419 So.2d 194, 199 (Miss. 1982), each defendant, in the wake of a Barker analysis, was discharged following delays of 370, 423, 480, 298, and 566 days, respectively. | 3 | 3 |
Perry v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Perry v. State, 637 So.2d 871, 875 (Miss.1994). ¶ 17. 2000Perry v. State , 637 So.2d 871 , 875 (Miss. 1994). ¶ 29. | 2 | 3 |
Arthur v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., Arthur, 735 So.2d at 216 (finding no violation despite the defendant winning three of the four Barker factors: "The final Barker factor is the resulting prejudice to Arthur. 2008It is not possible to fairly conclude from the plurality opinion anything other than the incorrect notion that the right to a speedy trial is important only to prevent prejudice. 85 See, e.g., Arthur, 735 So. 2d at 216 (finding no violation despite the defendant winning three of the four Barker factors: “The final Barker factor is the resulting prejudice to Arthur. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Fergusongreen2 sentences1998See State v. Ferguson, 576 So.2d 1252, 1255 (Miss.1991). 1992Id.; see also Adams v. State, 583 So.2d 165, 167 (Miss. 1991); State v. Ferguson, 576 So.2d 1252, 1254-55 (Miss. 1991); Handley v. State, 574 So.2d 671, 674 (Miss. 1990); Vickery, 535 So.2d 1371, 1376 (Miss. 1988); Dedeaux v. State, 519 So.2d 886, 888 (Miss. 1988). | 2 | 2 |
Barker v. Wingogreen2 sentences2016In balancing the four Barker factors, no single factor is “either a necessary or a sufficient condition to the finding of a deprivation of the right of speedy trial.” Barker, 407 U.S. at 533 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 . 2016In balancing the four Barker factors, no single factor is “either a necessary or a sufficient condition to the finding of a deprivation of the right of speedy trial.” Barker, 407 U.S. at 533 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 . | 1 | 24 |
Beavers v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Beavers, 498 So.2d at 792 (emphasis added) (reversing and rendering). . 1993The length of the delay from arrest to trial was 475 days. [1] In Smith v. State, 550 So.2d 406, 408 (Miss. 1989); Beavers v. State, supra, 498 So.2d 788 (Miss. 1986); Burgess v. State, 473 So.2d 432 (Miss. 1985); Bailey v. State, 463 So.2d 1059, 1062 (Miss. 1985); and Perry v. State, 419 So.2d 194, 199 (Miss. 1982), each defendant, in the wake of a Barker analysis, was discharged following delays of 370, 423, 480, 298, and 566 days, respectively. | 1 | 2 |
Vickery v. Stategreen2 sentences2000Vickery, 535 So.2d at 1376 . 1992Id.; see also Adams v. State, 583 So.2d 165, 167 (Miss. 1991); State v. Ferguson, 576 So.2d 1252, 1254-55 (Miss. 1991); Handley v. State, 574 So.2d 671, 674 (Miss. 1990); Vickery, 535 So.2d 1371, 1376 (Miss. 1988); Dedeaux v. State, 519 So.2d 886, 888 (Miss. 1988). | 1 | 2 |
Perry v. Stategreen2 sentences1996"When a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated, the sole remedy is to reverse the conviction and dismiss the charges." Bailey v. State, 463 So.2d 1059, 1064 (Miss. 1985) (citing Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434 , 93 S.Ct. 2260 , 37 L.Ed.2d 56 (1973); Perry v. State, 419 So.2d 194 (Miss. 1982); Turner v. State, 383 So.2d 489 (Miss. 1980)). 1993The length of the delay from arrest to trial was 475 days. [1] In Smith v. State, 550 So.2d 406, 408 (Miss. 1989); Beavers v. State, supra, 498 So.2d 788 (Miss. 1986); Burgess v. State, 473 So.2d 432 (Miss. 1985); Bailey v. State, 463 So.2d 1059, 1062 (Miss. 1985); and Perry v. State, 419 So.2d 194, 199 (Miss. 1982), each defendant, in the wake of a Barker analysis, was discharged following delays of 370, 423, 480, 298, and 566 days, respectively. | 1 | 2 |
Jasso v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Id. at 35. ¶ 65. 2015Id. at 35 . ¶65. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. MacDonaldgreen2 sentences2008This is where Arthur loses his argument.”) (emphasis added). 86 United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1, 8 , 102 S. Ct. 1497, 1502 (1982) (emphasis added). 28 A. Prejudice presumed ¶73. 2008This is where Arthur loses his argument.”) (emphasis added). 86 United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1, 8 , 102 S. Ct. 1497, 1502 (1982) (emphasis added). 28 A. Prejudice presumed ¶73. | 1 | 1 |
Moawad v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Lambert v. State, 574 So.2d 573, 577 (Miss. 1990) (citing Moawad v. State, 531 So.2d 632, 635 (Miss. 1988) and Williams v. State, 522 So.2d 201, 209 (Miss. 1988)). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Lambert v. State, 574 So.2d 573, 577 (Miss. 1990) (citing Moawad v. State, 531 So.2d 632, 635 (Miss. 1988) and Williams v. State, 522 So.2d 201, 209 (Miss. 1988)). | 1 | 1 |
Lambert v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Lambert v. State, 574 So.2d 573, 577 (Miss. 1990) (citing Moawad v. State, 531 So.2d 632, 635 (Miss. 1988) and Williams v. State, 522 So.2d 201, 209 (Miss. 1988)). | 1 | 1 |
Skaggs v. Stategreen1 sentence1999Skaggs v. State, 676 So.2d 897, 900 (Miss.1996). | 1 | 1 |
Dedeaux v. Stategreen1 sentence1992Id.; see also Adams v. State, 583 So.2d 165, 167 (Miss. 1991); State v. Ferguson, 576 So.2d 1252, 1254-55 (Miss. 1991); Handley v. State, 574 So.2d 671, 674 (Miss. 1990); Vickery, 535 So.2d 1371, 1376 (Miss. 1988); Dedeaux v. State, 519 So.2d 886, 888 (Miss. 1988). | 1 | 1 |
Handley v. Stategreen1 sentence1992Id.; see also Adams v. State, 583 So.2d 165, 167 (Miss. 1991); State v. Ferguson, 576 So.2d 1252, 1254-55 (Miss. 1991); Handley v. State, 574 So.2d 671, 674 (Miss. 1990); Vickery, 535 So.2d 1371, 1376 (Miss. 1988); Dedeaux v. State, 519 So.2d 886, 888 (Miss. 1988). | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. Stategreen1 sentence1992Id.; see also Adams v. State, 583 So.2d 165, 167 (Miss. 1991); State v. Ferguson, 576 So.2d 1252, 1254-55 (Miss. 1991); Handley v. State, 574 So.2d 671, 674 (Miss. 1990); Vickery, 535 So.2d 1371, 1376 (Miss. 1988); Dedeaux v. State, 519 So.2d 886, 888 (Miss. 1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Turner v. State
green
2 sentences1996"When a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated, the sole remedy is to reverse the conviction and dismiss the charges." Bailey v. State, 463 So.2d 1059, 1064 (Miss. 1985) (citing Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434 , 93 S.Ct. 2260 , 37 L.Ed.2d 56 (1973); Perry v. State, 419 So.2d 194 (Miss. 1982); Turner v. State, 383 So.2d 489 (Miss. 1980)). 1992"When a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated, the sole remedy is to reverse the conviction and dismiss the charges." Bailey v. State, 463 So. 2d 1059, 1064 (Miss. 1985) (citing Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434 (1973); Perry v. State, 419 So. 2d 197 (Miss. 1988); Turner v. State, 383 So. 2d 489 (Miss. 1980)). | 2 | 1992–1996 |
Strunk v. United States
green
2 sentences1996"When a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated, the sole remedy is to reverse the conviction and dismiss the charges." Bailey v. State, 463 So.2d 1059, 1064 (Miss. 1985) (citing Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434 , 93 S.Ct. 2260 , 37 L.Ed.2d 56 (1973); Perry v. State, 419 So.2d 194 (Miss. 1982); Turner v. State, 383 So.2d 489 (Miss. 1980)). 1996"When a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated, the sole remedy is to reverse the conviction and dismiss the charges." Bailey v. State, 463 So.2d 1059, 1064 (Miss. 1985) (citing Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434 , 93 S.Ct. 2260 , 37 L.Ed.2d 56 (1973); Perry v. State, 419 So.2d 194 (Miss. 1982); Turner v. State, 383 So.2d 489 (Miss. 1980)). | 2 | 1992–1996 |
Burgess v. State
green
1 sentence1993The length of the delay from arrest to trial was 475 days. [1] In Smith v. State, 550 So.2d 406, 408 (Miss. 1989); Beavers v. State, supra, 498 So.2d 788 (Miss. 1986); Burgess v. State, 473 So.2d 432 (Miss. 1985); Bailey v. State, 463 So.2d 1059, 1062 (Miss. 1985); and Perry v. State, 419 So.2d 194, 199 (Miss. 1982), each defendant, in the wake of a Barker analysis, was discharged following delays of 370, 423, 480, 298, and 566 days, respectively. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.