section 7 speedy trial (Delaware) · Go Syfert
← Delaware issues

section 7 speedy trial in Delaware

8 Delaware opinions name it 2 courts 1953–2021 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Delaware 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Fensterer v. Statered
del · 1985 · cited in 4 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 1987–1990
2 sentences

1990Fensterer v. State, Del.Supr., 493 A.2d 959, 964 , rev’d on other grounds, 474 U.S. 15 , 106 S.Ct. 292 , 88 L.Ed.2d 15 (1985).

1987"A defendant has no greater right to a speedy trial under Article I, section 7 of the Delaware Constitution than he has under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Fensterer v. State, Del.Supr., 493 A.2d 959, 964 (1985), rev’d on other grounds, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 292 , 88 L.Ed.2d 15 (1986).

34
Shockley v. Stategreen
del · 1970 · cited in 2 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 1985–1987
2 sentences

1987See Fensterer v. State, Del.Supr., 493 A.2d 959 (1985) and Shockley v. State, Del.Supr., 269 A.2d 778 (1970).

1985Therefore, our analy *965 sis of Fensterer’s state constitutional challenge parallels that of his federal claim. 7 See Shockley v. State, Del.Supr., 269 A.2d 778 (1970) (state speedy trial right interpreted in light of federal precedents).

12
Middlebrook v. Stategreen
del · 2002 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021Second, Mr. Rodriguez contends that the application of the Barker test requires this Court to dismiss Mr. Rodriguez’s case due to a violation of his right to a speedy trial under Article I, Section 7 of the Delaware Constitution and the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 4 Middlebrook v. State, 802 A.2d 268, 270 (Del. 2002) (citing Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041 , 103 S. Ct. 3469 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983) (recognizing that state law, if separate and independent from federal law, may provide an adequate and independent ground for a state court's decision and that “[i]f the

11
Bailey v. Stategreen
del · 1987 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987
1 sentence

1987See Bailey, supra at 1079 ; Fensterer v. State, Del.Supr., 493 A.2d 959, 964 (1985), rev'd on other grounds, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 292 , 88 L.Ed.2d 15 (1986).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Delaware v. Fensterer green
scotus · 1985
2 sentences

1987"A defendant has no greater right to a speedy trial under Article I, section 7 of the Delaware Constitution than he has under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Fensterer v. State, Del.Supr., 493 A.2d 959, 964 (1985), rev’d on other grounds, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 292 , 88 L.Ed.2d 15 (1986).

1987"A defendant has no greater right to a speedy trial under Article I, section 7 of the Delaware Constitution than he has under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Fensterer v. State, Del.Supr., 493 A.2d 959, 964 (1985), rev’d on other grounds, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 292 , 88 L.Ed.2d 15 (1986).

31987–1990
Michigan v. Long green
scotus · 1983
2 sentences

2021Second, Mr. Rodriguez contends that the application of the Barker test requires this Court to dismiss Mr. Rodriguez’s case due to a violation of his right to a speedy trial under Article I, Section 7 of the Delaware Constitution and the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 4 Middlebrook v. State, 802 A.2d 268, 270 (Del. 2002) (citing Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041 , 103 S. Ct. 3469 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983) (recognizing that state law, if separate and independent from federal law, may provide an adequate and independent ground for a state court's decision and that “[i]f the

2021Second, Mr. Rodriguez contends that the application of the Barker test requires this Court to dismiss Mr. Rodriguez’s case due to a violation of his right to a speedy trial under Article I, Section 7 of the Delaware Constitution and the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 4 Middlebrook v. State, 802 A.2d 268, 270 (Del. 2002) (citing Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041 , 103 S. Ct. 3469 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983) (recognizing that state law, if separate and independent from federal law, may provide an adequate and independent ground for a state court's decision and that “[i]f the

12021–2021
Barker v. Wingo green
scotus · 1972
2 sentences

2021Second, Mr. Rodriguez contends that the application of the Barker test requires this Court to dismiss Mr. Rodriguez’s case due to a violation of his right to a speedy trial under Article I, Section 7 of the Delaware Constitution and the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 4 Middlebrook v. State, 802 A.2d 268, 270 (Del. 2002) (citing Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041 , 103 S. Ct. 3469 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983) (recognizing that state law, if separate and independent from federal law, may provide an adequate and independent ground for a state court's decision and that “[i]f the

2021Second, Mr. Rodriguez contends that the application of the Barker test requires this Court to dismiss Mr. Rodriguez’s case due to a violation of his right to a speedy trial under Article I, Section 7 of the Delaware Constitution and the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 4 Middlebrook v. State, 802 A.2d 268, 270 (Del. 2002) (citing Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041 , 103 S. Ct. 3469 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983) (recognizing that state law, if separate and independent from federal law, may provide an adequate and independent ground for a state court's decision and that “[i]f the

12021–2021
United States ex rel. Giovengo v. Maroney green
pawd · 1961
1 sentence

1979As defendant points out, an unreasonable delay in sentencing is a violation of due process, for “justice delayed is justice denied.” See Commonwealth v. Stewart, Pa.Super., 221 Pa.Super. 1 , 289 A.2d 126 (1972); Giovengo v. Maroney, W.D.Pa., 194 F.Supp. 154 (1961).

11979–1979
Commonwealth v. Stewart green
pasuperct · 1972
2 sentences

1979As defendant points out, an unreasonable delay in sentencing is a violation of due process, for “justice delayed is justice denied.” See Commonwealth v. Stewart, Pa.Super., 221 Pa.Super. 1 , 289 A.2d 126 (1972); Giovengo v. Maroney, W.D.Pa., 194 F.Supp. 154 (1961).

1979As defendant points out, an unreasonable delay in sentencing is a violation of due process, for “justice delayed is justice denied.” See Commonwealth v. Stewart, Pa.Super., 221 Pa.Super. 1 , 289 A.2d 126 (1972); Giovengo v. Maroney, W.D.Pa., 194 F.Supp. 154 (1961).

11979–1979
Beavers v. Haubert green
scotus · 1905
2 sentences

1953In the alternative, defendants insist that, from the facts above outlined, they have not been accorded a speedy trial within the meaning of Article I, § 7 of the State Constitution which reads: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused hath a right to * * * a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury * * In Beavers v. Haubert, 198 U. S. 77, 87 , 25 S. Ct. 573, 576 , 49 L.

1953In the alternative, defendants insist that, from the facts above outlined, they have not been accorded a speedy trial within the meaning of Article I, § 7 of the State Constitution which reads: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused hath a right to * * * a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury * * In Beavers v. Haubert, 198 U. S. 77, 87 , 25 S. Ct. 573, 576 , 49 L.

11953–1953

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check