26 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2020 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 sentences2019Id. at (¶12). 1998See Smith, 550 So.2d at 408 (holding that for constitutional purposes the right to a speedy trial attaches at arrest). | 2 | 3 |
Handley v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Handley v. State, 574 So.2d 671, 674 (Miss.1990). 1991Handley v. State, 574 So.2d 671 , 674 (Miss. 1990). | 2 | 2 |
Beavers v. Stategreen2 sentences1998See Galloway v. State, 574 So.2d 1, 2 (Miss. 1990) (citing Beavers v. State, 498 So.2d 788 (Miss.1986); and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972)). 1997See Galloway v. State, 574 So. 2d 1, 2 (Miss. 1990) (citing Beavers v. State, 498 So. 2d 788 (Miss. 1986); and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972)). | 2 | 2 |
Galloway v. Stategreen2 sentences1998See Galloway v. State, 574 So.2d 1, 2 (Miss. 1990) (citing Beavers v. State, 498 So.2d 788 (Miss.1986); and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972)). 1997See Galloway v. State, 574 So. 2d 1, 2 (Miss. 1990) (citing Beavers v. State, 498 So. 2d 788 (Miss. 1986); and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972)). | 2 | 2 |
Barker v. Wingogreen2 sentences2020A constitutional speedy-trial claim is analyzed under the test developed by the United States Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530-32 (1972), which requires a balancing of four factors: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the defendant’s responsibility to assert his right to a speedy trial; and (4) prejudice to the defendant. 1999Where a defendant asserts a constitutional speedy trial violation, the Court considers four factors established by the United States Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). | 1 | 12 |
Havard v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Rather, where a defendant wholly fails to raise a constitutional speedy-trial claim before the trial court, this Court and the Mississippi Supreme Court apply a “plain error” analysis, which places the burden on Wilson to establish “a plain-error basis to justify appellate review.” Havard, 94 So. 3d at 237 (¶22). 2018As we have addressed above, “‘[f]or the plain-error doctrine to apply, there must have been an error that 18 “[T]he United States Supreme Court has stated that a formal indictment or information or an arrest—which ever occurs first—triggers the constitutional right to a speedy trial.” Havard, 94 So. 3d at 237 (¶21). 19 As noted, Wilson's motion to dismiss due to trial delays filed in the trial court only referenced a 270-day requirement from date of arraignment to trial (i.e., the section 99-17-1 270-day rule). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Lupe Gomezgreen2 sentences2015In United States v. Gomez, 67 F.3d. 1515, 1521 (10th Cir.1995), the Tenth Circuit reviewed a constitutional speedy-trial claim under plain error where the issue was not raised at all before the district court. 2015In United States v. Gomez, 67 F.3d 1515, 1521 (10th Cir. 1995), the Tenth Circuit reviewed a constitutional speedy-trial claim under plain error where the issue was not raised at all before the district court. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. McDanielgreen2 sentences2015See also United States v. McDaniel, 631 F.3d 1204 , 1209 n. 2 (11th Cir.2011) (applying plain-error review to constitutional speedy-trial argument not raised in district court); United States v. Rice, 746 F.3d 1074, 1082 (D.C.Cir.2014) (same); United States v. Green, 516 Fed.Appx. 113, 124 (3rd Cir.2013) (same); United States v. O’Connor, 656 F.3d 630, 643 (7th Cir.2011) (same). ¶73. 2015See also United States v. McDaniel, 484 631 F.3d 1204 , 1209 n.2 (11th Cir. 2011) (applying plain-error review to constitutional speedy-trial argument not raised in district court); United States v. Rice, 746 F.3d 1074, 1082 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. O'Connorgreen1 sentence2015See also United States v. McDaniel, 631 F.3d 1204 , 1209 n. 2 (11th Cir.2011) (applying plain-error review to constitutional speedy-trial argument not raised in district court); United States v. Rice, 746 F.3d 1074, 1082 (D.C.Cir.2014) (same); United States v. Green, 516 Fed.Appx. 113, 124 (3rd Cir.2013) (same); United States v. O’Connor, 656 F.3d 630, 643 (7th Cir.2011) (same). ¶73. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Mark Greengreen1 sentence2015See also United States v. McDaniel, 631 F.3d 1204 , 1209 n. 2 (11th Cir.2011) (applying plain-error review to constitutional speedy-trial argument not raised in district court); United States v. Rice, 746 F.3d 1074, 1082 (D.C.Cir.2014) (same); United States v. Green, 516 Fed.Appx. 113, 124 (3rd Cir.2013) (same); United States v. O’Connor, 656 F.3d 630, 643 (7th Cir.2011) (same). ¶73. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Anthony Ricegreen2 sentences2015See also United States v. McDaniel, 631 F.3d 1204 , 1209 n. 2 (11th Cir.2011) (applying plain-error review to constitutional speedy-trial argument not raised in district court); United States v. Rice, 746 F.3d 1074, 1082 (D.C.Cir.2014) (same); United States v. Green, 516 Fed.Appx. 113, 124 (3rd Cir.2013) (same); United States v. O’Connor, 656 F.3d 630, 643 (7th Cir.2011) (same). ¶73. 2015See also United States v. McDaniel, 484 631 F.3d 1204 , 1209 n.2 (11th Cir. 2011) (applying plain-error review to constitutional speedy-trial argument not raised in district court); United States v. Rice, 746 F.3d 1074, 1082 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
Brunson v. Stategreen1 sentence2009Brunson v. State, 944 So.2d 922, 926 (¶ 12) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (citing Spencer v. State, 592 So.2d 1382, 1387 (Miss.1991)). ¶ 13. | 1 | 1 |
Spencer v. Stategreen1 sentence2009Brunson v. State, 944 So.2d 922, 926 (¶ 12) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (citing Spencer v. State, 592 So.2d 1382, 1387 (Miss.1991)). ¶ 13. | 1 | 1 |
Dora v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Additionally, the Court of Appeals ordered the trial court to conduct a constitutional speedy-trial hearing as "[w]hen the constitutional right to a speedy trial violation is raised for the first time on appeal, the case is remanded to the lower court to consider reasons for the delay." Id. at 971 . 2008Dora, 986 So.2d at 970-71 (emphasis added). ¶ 16. | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Stategreen1 sentence2006Instead, the Barker test details four factors that must be considered together and balanced: "(1) length of delay, (2) reason for delay, (3) the defendant's assertion of his right, and (4) prejudice to the defendant." Id. at 450(¶ 7) (citing Barker, 407 U.S. at 530-32 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 ; Taylor v. State, 672 So.2d 1246, 1258 (Miss.1996)). | 1 | 1 |
Bailey v. Stategreen2 sentences1992Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434, 439-440 , 93 S.Ct. 2260, 2263 , 37 L.Ed.2d 56, 61 (1973); Barker, 407 U.S. at 522 , 92 S.Ct. at 2188 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 ; Bailey v. State, 463 So.2d 1059, 1064 (Miss. 1985); Turner v. State 383 So.2d 489 (Miss. 1980); Perry, 419 So.2d at 197 . 1992See Williamson, 512 So.2d at 876 (analyzing the 270-day rule), citing Bailey, 463 So.2d at 1063 (analyzing a constitutional speedy trial violation). | 1 | 1 |
Strunk v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1992Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434, 439-440 , 93 S.Ct. 2260, 2263 , 37 L.Ed.2d 56, 61 (1973); Barker, 407 U.S. at 522 , 92 S.Ct. at 2188 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 ; Bailey v. State, 463 So.2d 1059, 1064 (Miss. 1985); Turner v. State 383 So.2d 489 (Miss. 1980); Perry, 419 So.2d at 197 . 1992Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434, 439-440 , 93 S.Ct. 2260, 2263 , 37 L.Ed.2d 56, 61 (1973); Barker, 407 U.S. at 522 , 92 S.Ct. at 2188 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 ; Bailey v. State, 463 So.2d 1059, 1064 (Miss. 1985); Turner v. State 383 So.2d 489 (Miss. 1980); Perry, 419 So.2d at 197 . | 1 | 1 |
Williamson v. Stategreen1 sentence1992See Williamson, 512 So.2d at 876 (analyzing the 270-day rule), citing Bailey, 463 So.2d at 1063 (analyzing a constitutional speedy trial violation). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Price v. State
green
2 sentences2010Price, 898 So.2d at 647 . ¶41. 2009Price, 898 So. 2d at 647 . ¶41. | 2 | 2009–2010 |
DeLoach v. State
green
1 sentence2005DeLoach, *648 722 So.2d at 516 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Moore v. State
green
1 sentence1994Moore v. State, 556 So.2d 1031 (Miss. 1990), Yarber v. State, 573 So.2d 727 (Miss. 1990), and Ford v. State, 589 So.2d 1261 (1991) are instances where we have done so. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Magnusen
green
1 sentence1994Magnusen, 646 So. 2d at 1284 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Ford v. State
green
1 sentence1994Moore v. State, 556 So.2d 1031 (Miss. 1990), Yarber v. State, 573 So.2d 727 (Miss. 1990), and Ford v. State, 589 So.2d 1261 (1991) are instances where we have done so. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Yarber v. State
green
1 sentence1994Moore v. State, 556 So.2d 1031 (Miss. 1990), Yarber v. State, 573 So.2d 727 (Miss. 1990), and Ford v. State, 589 So.2d 1261 (1991) are instances where we have done so. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Turner v. State
green
1 sentence1992Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434, 439-440 , 93 S.Ct. 2260, 2263 , 37 L.Ed.2d 56, 61 (1973); Barker, 407 U.S. at 522 , 92 S.Ct. at 2188 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 ; Bailey v. State, 463 So.2d 1059, 1064 (Miss. 1985); Turner v. State 383 So.2d 489 (Miss. 1980); Perry, 419 So.2d at 197 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Perry v. State
green
1 sentence1992Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434, 439-440 , 93 S.Ct. 2260, 2263 , 37 L.Ed.2d 56, 61 (1973); Barker, 407 U.S. at 522 , 92 S.Ct. at 2188 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 ; Bailey v. State, 463 So.2d 1059, 1064 (Miss. 1985); Turner v. State 383 So.2d 489 (Miss. 1980); Perry, 419 So.2d at 197 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.