Sixth Amendment challenge in Alaska

10 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2024 3 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Alaska 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 (25)

Case	Followed	Cited
United States v. Wilsongreen ord · 2010 · cited in 3 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 2 sentences 2019But see McNeil , 575 F.3d at 1265-75 (Tjoflat, J., concurring) (explaining that defendant had no Sixth Amendment claim based on defense attorney's incompetent advice prior to initial charges being filed but defendant might have had due process claim under the Fifth Amendment); United States v. Wilson , 719 F.Supp.2d 1260 , 1267 (D. 2019But see McNeil, 575 F.3d at 1265-75 (Tjoflat, J., concurring) (explaining that defendant had no Sixth Amendment claim based on defense attorney’s incompetent advice prior to initial charges being filed but defendant might have had due process claim under the Fifth Amendment); United States v. Wilson, 719 F. Supp. 2d 1260, 1267 (D.	2	3
United States v. Villarrealgreen ca11 · 2010 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 2 sentences 2024Hernandez’s counsel at oral argument conceded that there was no clear rule stating that delays over a certain length of time give rise to presumptive prejudice that satisfies the fourth Barker factor. 35 Doggett, 505 U.S. at 656-58 . 36 See, e.g., United States v. Cabral, 979 F.3d 150 , 165 (2d Cir. 2020) (eleven years); United States v. Villarreal, 613 F.3d 1344, 1355 (11th Cir. 2010) (ten years); State v. Moran, 711 N.W.2d 915, 922 (N.D. 2006) (nine years). 37 Doggett, 505 U.S. at 656 . – 39 – 2772 defense” weighs heavily against the prosecution. “[M]ore neutral reason[s] such as negligence 2024Hernandez’s counsel at oral argument conceded that there was no clear rule stating that delays over a certain length of time give rise to presumptive prejudice that satisfies the fourth Barker factor. 35 Doggett, 505 U.S. at 656-58 . 36 See, e.g., United States v. Cabral, 979 F.3d 150 , 165 (2d Cir. 2020) (eleven years); United States v. Villarreal, 613 F.3d 1344, 1355 (11th Cir. 2010) (ten years); State v. Moran, 711 N.W.2d 915, 922 (N.D. 2006) (nine years). 37 Doggett, 505 U.S. at 656 . – 39 – 2772 defense” weighs heavily against the prosecution. “[M]ore neutral reason[s] such as negligence	1	1
State v. Morangreen nd · 2006 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 2 sentences 2024Hernandez’s counsel at oral argument conceded that there was no clear rule stating that delays over a certain length of time give rise to presumptive prejudice that satisfies the fourth Barker factor. 35 Doggett, 505 U.S. at 656-58 . 36 See, e.g., United States v. Cabral, 979 F.3d 150 , 165 (2d Cir. 2020) (eleven years); United States v. Villarreal, 613 F.3d 1344, 1355 (11th Cir. 2010) (ten years); State v. Moran, 711 N.W.2d 915, 922 (N.D. 2006) (nine years). 37 Doggett, 505 U.S. at 656 . – 39 – 2772 defense” weighs heavily against the prosecution. “[M]ore neutral reason[s] such as negligence 2024Hernandez’s counsel at oral argument conceded that there was no clear rule stating that delays over a certain length of time give rise to presumptive prejudice that satisfies the fourth Barker factor. 35 Doggett, 505 U.S. at 656-58 . 36 See, e.g., United States v. Cabral, 979 F.3d 150 , 165 (2d Cir. 2020) (eleven years); United States v. Villarreal, 613 F.3d 1344, 1355 (11th Cir. 2010) (ten years); State v. Moran, 711 N.W.2d 915, 922 (N.D. 2006) (nine years). 37 Doggett, 505 U.S. at 656 . – 39 – 2772 defense” weighs heavily against the prosecution. “[M]ore neutral reason[s] such as negligence	1	1
Crawford v. Washingtongreen scotus · 2004 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022LaFave, Criminal Procedure § 24.4(a), at 513-14 (4th ed. 2015) (noting that the Supreme Court has interpreted the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to bar only the admission of testimonial hearsay and explaining that “[w]here nontestimonial hearsay is at issue, it is wholly consistent with the Framers’ design to afford the States flexibility in their development of hearsay law” (quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004))). 26 See Berezyuk v. State, 282 P.3d 386, 401 (Alaska App. 2012). – 14 – 2731 Why we conclude that C.H.’s statements to Officer Mills were testimonial G	1	1
Bernhard Dohrmann v. United Statesgreen ca11 · 2006 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022At the federal level: See United States v. Kachkar, 2022 WL 2704358 , at *10 (11th Cir. July 12, 2022) (unpublished) (citing Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 2006)); United States v. Vega-Martínez, 949 F.3d 43, 54-55 (1st Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Milkiewicz, 470 F.3d 390, 403-04 (1st Cir. 2006)); United States v. Churn, 800 F.3d 768, 781-82 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Sosebee, 419 F.3d 451, 561 (6th Cir. 2005)); United States v. Burns, 800 F.3d 1258, 1261-62 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. Bengis, 783 F.3d 407, 412-13 (2d Cir. 2015); United S	1	1
Berezyuk v. Stategreen alaskactapp · 2012 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022LaFave, Criminal Procedure § 24.4(a), at 513-14 (4th ed. 2015) (noting that the Supreme Court has interpreted the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to bar only the admission of testimonial hearsay and explaining that “[w]here nontestimonial hearsay is at issue, it is wholly consistent with the Framers’ design to afford the States flexibility in their development of hearsay law” (quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004))). 26 See Berezyuk v. State, 282 P.3d 386, 401 (Alaska App. 2012). – 14 – 2731 Why we conclude that C.H.’s statements to Officer Mills were testimonial G	1	1
United States v. Milkiewiczgreen ca1 · 2006 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022At the federal level: See United States v. Kachkar, 2022 WL 2704358 , at *10 (11th Cir. July 12, 2022) (unpublished) (citing Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 2006)); United States v. Vega-Martínez, 949 F.3d 43, 54-55 (1st Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Milkiewicz, 470 F.3d 390, 403-04 (1st Cir. 2006)); United States v. Churn, 800 F.3d 768, 781-82 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Sosebee, 419 F.3d 451, 561 (6th Cir. 2005)); United States v. Burns, 800 F.3d 1258, 1261-62 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. Bengis, 783 F.3d 407, 412-13 (2d Cir. 2015); United S	1	1
United States v. Keith Churngreen ca6 · 2015 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022At the federal level: See United States v. Kachkar, 2022 WL 2704358 , at *10 (11th Cir. July 12, 2022) (unpublished) (citing Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 2006)); United States v. Vega-Martínez, 949 F.3d 43, 54-55 (1st Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Milkiewicz, 470 F.3d 390, 403-04 (1st Cir. 2006)); United States v. Churn, 800 F.3d 768, 781-82 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Sosebee, 419 F.3d 451, 561 (6th Cir. 2005)); United States v. Burns, 800 F.3d 1258, 1261-62 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. Bengis, 783 F.3d 407, 412-13 (2d Cir. 2015); United S	1	1
United States v. Burnsgreen ca10 · 2015 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 2 sentences 2022At the federal level: See United States v. Kachkar, 2022 WL 2704358 , at 10 (11th Cir. July 12, 2022) (unpublished) (citing Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 2006)); United States v. Vega-Martínez, 949 F.3d 43, 54-55 (1st Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Milkiewicz, 470 F.3d 390, 403-04 (1st Cir. 2006)); United States v. Churn, 800 F.3d 768, 781-82 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Sosebee, 419 F.3d 451, 561 (6th Cir. 2005)); United States v. Burns, 800 F.3d 1258, 1261-62 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. Bengis, 783 F.3d 407, 412-13 (2d Cir. 2015); United S 2022At the federal level: See United States v. Kachkar, 2022 WL 2704358 , at 10 (11th Cir. July 12, 2022) (unpublished) (citing Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 2006)); United States v. Vega-Martínez, 949 F.3d 43, 54-55 (1st Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Milkiewicz, 470 F.3d 390, 403-04 (1st Cir. 2006)); United States v. Churn, 800 F.3d 768, 781-82 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Sosebee, 419 F.3d 451, 561 (6th Cir. 2005)); United States v. Burns, 800 F.3d 1258, 1261-62 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. Bengis, 783 F.3d 407, 412-13 (2d Cir. 2015); United S	1	1
United States v. Gerald Greengreen ca9 · 2013 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022At the federal level: See United States v. Kachkar, 2022 WL 2704358 , at *10 (11th Cir. July 12, 2022) (unpublished) (citing Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 2006)); United States v. Vega-Martínez, 949 F.3d 43, 54-55 (1st Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Milkiewicz, 470 F.3d 390, 403-04 (1st Cir. 2006)); United States v. Churn, 800 F.3d 768, 781-82 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Sosebee, 419 F.3d 451, 561 (6th Cir. 2005)); United States v. Burns, 800 F.3d 1258, 1261-62 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. Bengis, 783 F.3d 407, 412-13 (2d Cir. 2015); United S	1	1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF—APPELLEE v. ROBERT ALLEN CARRUTH, DEFENDANT—APPELLANTgreen ca8 · 2005 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022At the federal level: See United States v. Kachkar, 2022 WL 2704358 , at *10 (11th Cir. July 12, 2022) (unpublished) (citing Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 2006)); United States v. Vega-Martínez, 949 F.3d 43, 54-55 (1st Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Milkiewicz, 470 F.3d 390, 403-04 (1st Cir. 2006)); United States v. Churn, 800 F.3d 768, 781-82 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Sosebee, 419 F.3d 451, 561 (6th Cir. 2005)); United States v. Burns, 800 F.3d 1258, 1261-62 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. Bengis, 783 F.3d 407, 412-13 (2d Cir. 2015); United S	1	1
United States v. Rachel Shannon Sosebee (03-1923) and Jack P. Farris (03-2219)green ca6 · 2005 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022At the federal level: See United States v. Kachkar, 2022 WL 2704358 , at *10 (11th Cir. July 12, 2022) (unpublished) (citing Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 2006)); United States v. Vega-Martínez, 949 F.3d 43, 54-55 (1st Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Milkiewicz, 470 F.3d 390, 403-04 (1st Cir. 2006)); United States v. Churn, 800 F.3d 768, 781-82 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Sosebee, 419 F.3d 451, 561 (6th Cir. 2005)); United States v. Burns, 800 F.3d 1258, 1261-62 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. Bengis, 783 F.3d 407, 412-13 (2d Cir. 2015); United S	1	1
cluster 793360green ca3 · 2006 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022At the federal level: See United States v. Kachkar, 2022 WL 2704358 , at *10 (11th Cir. July 12, 2022) (unpublished) (citing Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 2006)); United States v. Vega-Martínez, 949 F.3d 43, 54-55 (1st Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Milkiewicz, 470 F.3d 390, 403-04 (1st Cir. 2006)); United States v. Churn, 800 F.3d 768, 781-82 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Sosebee, 419 F.3d 451, 561 (6th Cir. 2005)); United States v. Burns, 800 F.3d 1258, 1261-62 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. Bengis, 783 F.3d 407, 412-13 (2d Cir. 2015); United S	1	1
United States v. Robert Readgreen ca5 · 2012 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022At the federal level: See United States v. Kachkar, 2022 WL 2704358 , at *10 (11th Cir. July 12, 2022) (unpublished) (citing Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 2006)); United States v. Vega-Martínez, 949 F.3d 43, 54-55 (1st Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Milkiewicz, 470 F.3d 390, 403-04 (1st Cir. 2006)); United States v. Churn, 800 F.3d 768, 781-82 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Sosebee, 419 F.3d 451, 561 (6th Cir. 2005)); United States v. Burns, 800 F.3d 1258, 1261-62 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. Bengis, 783 F.3d 407, 412-13 (2d Cir. 2015); United S	1	1
United States v. Roger Day, Jr.green ca4 · 2012 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022At the federal level: See United States v. Kachkar, 2022 WL 2704358 , at *10 (11th Cir. July 12, 2022) (unpublished) (citing Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 2006)); United States v. Vega-Martínez, 949 F.3d 43, 54-55 (1st Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Milkiewicz, 470 F.3d 390, 403-04 (1st Cir. 2006)); United States v. Churn, 800 F.3d 768, 781-82 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Sosebee, 419 F.3d 451, 561 (6th Cir. 2005)); United States v. Burns, 800 F.3d 1258, 1261-62 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. Bengis, 783 F.3d 407, 412-13 (2d Cir. 2015); United S	1	1
United States v. Gregory Wolfegreen ca7 · 2012 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 2 sentences 2022At the federal level: See United States v. Kachkar, 2022 WL 2704358 , at 10 (11th Cir. July 12, 2022) (unpublished) (citing Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 2006)); United States v. Vega-Martínez, 949 F.3d 43, 54-55 (1st Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Milkiewicz, 470 F.3d 390, 403-04 (1st Cir. 2006)); United States v. Churn, 800 F.3d 768, 781-82 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Sosebee, 419 F.3d 451, 561 (6th Cir. 2005)); United States v. Burns, 800 F.3d 1258, 1261-62 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. Bengis, 783 F.3d 407, 412-13 (2d Cir. 2015); United S 2022At the federal level: See United States v. Kachkar, 2022 WL 2704358 , at 10 (11th Cir. July 12, 2022) (unpublished) (citing Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 2006)); United States v. Vega-Martínez, 949 F.3d 43, 54-55 (1st Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Milkiewicz, 470 F.3d 390, 403-04 (1st Cir. 2006)); United States v. Churn, 800 F.3d 768, 781-82 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Sosebee, 419 F.3d 451, 561 (6th Cir. 2005)); United States v. Burns, 800 F.3d 1258, 1261-62 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. Bengis, 783 F.3d 407, 412-13 (2d Cir. 2015); United S	1	1
United States v. George Thunderhawkgreen ca8 · 2015 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 2 sentences 2022At the federal level: See United States v. Kachkar, 2022 WL 2704358 , at 10 (11th Cir. July 12, 2022) (unpublished) (citing Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 2006)); United States v. Vega-Martínez, 949 F.3d 43, 54-55 (1st Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Milkiewicz, 470 F.3d 390, 403-04 (1st Cir. 2006)); United States v. Churn, 800 F.3d 768, 781-82 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Sosebee, 419 F.3d 451, 561 (6th Cir. 2005)); United States v. Burns, 800 F.3d 1258, 1261-62 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. Bengis, 783 F.3d 407, 412-13 (2d Cir. 2015); United S 2022At the federal level: See United States v. Kachkar, 2022 WL 2704358 , at 10 (11th Cir. July 12, 2022) (unpublished) (citing Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 2006)); United States v. Vega-Martínez, 949 F.3d 43, 54-55 (1st Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Milkiewicz, 470 F.3d 390, 403-04 (1st Cir. 2006)); United States v. Churn, 800 F.3d 768, 781-82 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Sosebee, 419 F.3d 451, 561 (6th Cir. 2005)); United States v. Burns, 800 F.3d 1258, 1261-62 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. Bengis, 783 F.3d 407, 412-13 (2d Cir. 2015); United S	1	1
United States v. Bengisgreen ca2 · 2015 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022At the federal level: See United States v. Kachkar, 2022 WL 2704358 , at *10 (11th Cir. July 12, 2022) (unpublished) (citing Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 2006)); United States v. Vega-Martínez, 949 F.3d 43, 54-55 (1st Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Milkiewicz, 470 F.3d 390, 403-04 (1st Cir. 2006)); United States v. Churn, 800 F.3d 768, 781-82 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Sosebee, 419 F.3d 451, 561 (6th Cir. 2005)); United States v. Burns, 800 F.3d 1258, 1261-62 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. Bengis, 783 F.3d 407, 412-13 (2d Cir. 2015); United S	1	1
United States v. Vega-Martinezgreen ca1 · 2020 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022At the federal level: See United States v. Kachkar, 2022 WL 2704358 , at *10 (11th Cir. July 12, 2022) (unpublished) (citing Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 2006)); United States v. Vega-Martínez, 949 F.3d 43, 54-55 (1st Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Milkiewicz, 470 F.3d 390, 403-04 (1st Cir. 2006)); United States v. Churn, 800 F.3d 768, 781-82 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Sosebee, 419 F.3d 451, 561 (6th Cir. 2005)); United States v. Burns, 800 F.3d 1258, 1261-62 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. Bengis, 783 F.3d 407, 412-13 (2d Cir. 2015); United S	1	1
United States v. Harold Rosbottom, Jr.green ca5 · 2014 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022At the federal level: See United States v. Kachkar, 2022 WL 2704358 , at *10 (11th Cir. July 12, 2022) (unpublished) (citing Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 2006)); United States v. Vega-Martínez, 949 F.3d 43, 54-55 (1st Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Milkiewicz, 470 F.3d 390, 403-04 (1st Cir. 2006)); United States v. Churn, 800 F.3d 768, 781-82 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Sosebee, 419 F.3d 451, 561 (6th Cir. 2005)); United States v. Burns, 800 F.3d 1258, 1261-62 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. Bengis, 783 F.3d 407, 412-13 (2d Cir. 2015); United S	1	1
Lewis v. Stategreen alaskactapp · 2008 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013See United States v. Terry, 449 F.2d 727, 728 (5th Cir.1971) (citations omitted) (holding that a defendant who is financially able to retain counsel and fails to do so within a reasonable time may be held to have waived the right to counsel of choice); Lewis v. State, 195 P.3d 622, 633 (Alaska App.2008) (concluding that a Sixth Amendment claim based on the lack of counsel during a psychiatric examination was waived on appeal for lack of briefing). . 2013See United States v. Terry, 449 F.2d 727, 728 (5th Cir.1971) (citations omitted) (holding that a defendant who is financially able to retain counsel and fails to do so within a reasonable time may be held to have waived the right to counsel of choice); Lewis v. State, 195 P.3d 622, 633 (Alaska App.2008) (concluding that a Sixth Amendment claim based on the lack of counsel during a psychiatric examination was waived on appeal for lack of briefing). .	1	1
United States v. Robert Lester Terrygreen ca5 · 1971 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013See United States v. Terry, 449 F.2d 727, 728 (5th Cir.1971) (citations omitted) (holding that a defendant who is financially able to retain counsel and fails to do so within a reasonable time may be held to have waived the right to counsel of choice); Lewis v. State, 195 P.3d 622, 633 (Alaska App.2008) (concluding that a Sixth Amendment claim based on the lack of counsel during a psychiatric examination was waived on appeal for lack of briefing). . 2013See United States v. Terry, 449 F.2d 727, 728 (5th Cir.1971) (citations omitted) (holding that a defendant who is financially able to retain counsel and fails to do so within a reasonable time may be held to have waived the right to counsel of choice); Lewis v. State, 195 P.3d 622, 633 (Alaska App.2008) (concluding that a Sixth Amendment claim based on the lack of counsel during a psychiatric examination was waived on appeal for lack of briefing). .	1	1
McDonald v. City of Chicagogreen scotus · 2010 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012See Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 , 92 S.Ct. 1628 , 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972) (upholding a state law allowing a guilty verdict by a vote of 10-2 against a Sixth Amendment challenge); Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 , 92 S.Ct. 1620 , 32 L.Ed.2d 152 (1972) (upholding a state law allowing a guilty verdict by a vote of 9-3 against a due process challenge); see also McDonald v. City of Chicago, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3020 , 3035 & n. 14, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010) (noting that the Sixth Amendment requirement of unanimity was "one exception to thle] general rule"" that "incorporated Bill of Rights protect 2012See Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 , 92 S.Ct. 1628 , 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972) (upholding a state law allowing a guilty verdict by a vote of 10-2 against a Sixth Amendment challenge); Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 , 92 S.Ct. 1620 , 32 L.Ed.2d 152 (1972) (upholding a state law allowing a guilty verdict by a vote of 9-3 against a due process challenge); see also McDonald v. City of Chicago, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3020 , 3035 & n. 14, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010) (noting that the Sixth Amendment requirement of unanimity was "one exception to thle] general rule"" that "incorporated Bill of Rights protect	1	1
Malloy v. Hogangreen scotus · 1964 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012See Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 , 92 S.Ct. 1628 , 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972) (upholding a state law allowing a guilty verdict by a vote of 10-2 against a Sixth Amendment challenge); Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 , 92 S.Ct. 1620 , 32 L.Ed.2d 152 (1972) (upholding a state law allowing a guilty verdict by a vote of 9-3 against a due process challenge); see also McDonald v. City of Chicago, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3020 , 3035 & n. 14, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010) (noting that the Sixth Amendment requirement of unanimity was "one exception to thle] general rule"" that "incorporated Bill of Rights protect 2012See Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 , 92 S.Ct. 1628 , 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972) (upholding a state law allowing a guilty verdict by a vote of 10-2 against a Sixth Amendment challenge); Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 , 92 S.Ct. 1620 , 32 L.Ed.2d 152 (1972) (upholding a state law allowing a guilty verdict by a vote of 9-3 against a due process challenge); see also McDonald v. City of Chicago, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3020 , 3035 & n. 14, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010) (noting that the Sixth Amendment requirement of unanimity was "one exception to thle] general rule"" that "incorporated Bill of Rights protect	1	1
Apodaca v. Oregonred scotus · 1972 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012See Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 , 92 S.Ct. 1628 , 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972) (upholding a state law allowing a guilty verdict by a vote of 10-2 against a Sixth Amendment challenge); Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 , 92 S.Ct. 1620 , 32 L.Ed.2d 152 (1972) (upholding a state law allowing a guilty verdict by a vote of 9-3 against a due process challenge); see also McDonald v. City of Chicago, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3020 , 3035 & n. 14, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010) (noting that the Sixth Amendment requirement of unanimity was "one exception to thle] general rule"" that "incorporated Bill of Rights protect 2012See Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 , 92 S.Ct. 1628 , 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972) (upholding a state law allowing a guilty verdict by a vote of 10-2 against a Sixth Amendment challenge); Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 , 92 S.Ct. 1620 , 32 L.Ed.2d 152 (1972) (upholding a state law allowing a guilty verdict by a vote of 9-3 against a due process challenge); see also McDonald v. City of Chicago, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3020 , 3035 & n. 14, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010) (noting that the Sixth Amendment requirement of unanimity was "one exception to thle] general rule"" that "incorporated Bill of Rights protect	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (1)

Case	Negative	Cited
Philmore v. McNeilgreen ca11 · 2009 · cited in 3 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 2 sentences 2019But see McNeil , 575 F.3d at 1265-75 (Tjoflat, J., concurring) (explaining that defendant had no Sixth Amendment claim based on defense attorney's incompetent advice prior to initial charges being filed but defendant might have had due process claim under the Fifth Amendment); United States v. Wilson , 719 F.Supp.2d 1260 , 1267 (D. 2019But see McNeil, 575 F.3d at 1265-75 (Tjoflat, J., concurring) (explaining that defendant had no Sixth Amendment claim based on defense attorney’s incompetent advice prior to initial charges being filed but defendant might have had due process claim under the Fifth Amendment); United States v. Wilson, 719 F. Supp. 2d 1260, 1267 (D.	3	3

Also cited on this issue (7)

Case	Cited	Years
Doggett v. United States green scotus · 1992 2 sentences 2024Hernandez’s counsel at oral argument conceded that there was no clear rule stating that delays over a certain length of time give rise to presumptive prejudice that satisfies the fourth Barker factor. 35 Doggett, 505 U.S. at 656-58 . 36 See, e.g., United States v. Cabral, 979 F.3d 150 , 165 (2d Cir. 2020) (eleven years); United States v. Villarreal, 613 F.3d 1344, 1355 (11th Cir. 2010) (ten years); State v. Moran, 711 N.W.2d 915, 922 (N.D. 2006) (nine years). 37 Doggett, 505 U.S. at 656 . – 39 – 2772 defense” weighs heavily against the prosecution. “[M]ore neutral reason[s] such as negligence 2024Hernandez’s counsel at oral argument conceded that there was no clear rule stating that delays over a certain length of time give rise to presumptive prejudice that satisfies the fourth Barker factor. 35 Doggett, 505 U.S. at 656-58 . 36 See, e.g., United States v. Cabral, 979 F.3d 150 , 165 (2d Cir. 2020) (eleven years); United States v. Villarreal, 613 F.3d 1344, 1355 (11th Cir. 2010) (ten years); State v. Moran, 711 N.W.2d 915, 922 (N.D. 2006) (nine years). 37 Doggett, 505 U.S. at 656 . – 39 – 2772 defense” weighs heavily against the prosecution. “[M]ore neutral reason[s] such as negligence	1	2024–2024
United States v. Cabral green ca2 · 2020 2 sentences 2024Hernandez’s counsel at oral argument conceded that there was no clear rule stating that delays over a certain length of time give rise to presumptive prejudice that satisfies the fourth Barker factor. 35 Doggett, 505 U.S. at 656-58 . 36 See, e.g., United States v. Cabral, 979 F.3d 150 , 165 (2d Cir. 2020) (eleven years); United States v. Villarreal, 613 F.3d 1344, 1355 (11th Cir. 2010) (ten years); State v. Moran, 711 N.W.2d 915, 922 (N.D. 2006) (nine years). 37 Doggett, 505 U.S. at 656 . – 39 – 2772 defense” weighs heavily against the prosecution. “[M]ore neutral reason[s] such as negligence 2024Hernandez’s counsel at oral argument conceded that there was no clear rule stating that delays over a certain length of time give rise to presumptive prejudice that satisfies the fourth Barker factor. 35 Doggett, 505 U.S. at 656-58 . 36 See, e.g., United States v. Cabral, 979 F.3d 150 , 165 (2d Cir. 2020) (eleven years); United States v. Villarreal, 613 F.3d 1344, 1355 (11th Cir. 2010) (ten years); State v. Moran, 711 N.W.2d 915, 922 (N.D. 2006) (nine years). 37 Doggett, 505 U.S. at 656 . – 39 – 2772 defense” weighs heavily against the prosecution. “[M]ore neutral reason[s] such as negligence	1	2024–2024
State v. Field green mont · 2005 1 sentence 2022At the federal level: See United States v. Kachkar, 2022 WL 2704358 , at *10 (11th Cir. July 12, 2022) (unpublished) (citing Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 2006)); United States v. Vega-Martínez, 949 F.3d 43, 54-55 (1st Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Milkiewicz, 470 F.3d 390, 403-04 (1st Cir. 2006)); United States v. Churn, 800 F.3d 768, 781-82 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Sosebee, 419 F.3d 451, 561 (6th Cir. 2005)); United States v. Burns, 800 F.3d 1258, 1261-62 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. Bengis, 783 F.3d 407, 412-13 (2d Cir. 2015); United S	1	2022–2022
Johnson v. Louisiana green scotus · 1972 2 sentences 2012See Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 , 92 S.Ct. 1628 , 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972) (upholding a state law allowing a guilty verdict by a vote of 10-2 against a Sixth Amendment challenge); Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 , 92 S.Ct. 1620 , 32 L.Ed.2d 152 (1972) (upholding a state law allowing a guilty verdict by a vote of 9-3 against a due process challenge); see also McDonald v. City of Chicago, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3020 , 3035 & n. 14, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010) (noting that the Sixth Amendment requirement of unanimity was "one exception to thle] general rule"" that "incorporated Bill of Rights protect 2012See Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 , 92 S.Ct. 1628 , 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972) (upholding a state law allowing a guilty verdict by a vote of 10-2 against a Sixth Amendment challenge); Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 , 92 S.Ct. 1620 , 32 L.Ed.2d 152 (1972) (upholding a state law allowing a guilty verdict by a vote of 9-3 against a due process challenge); see also McDonald v. City of Chicago, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3020 , 3035 & n. 14, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010) (noting that the Sixth Amendment requirement of unanimity was "one exception to thle] general rule"" that "incorporated Bill of Rights protect	1	2012–2012
People v. Cage green cal · 2007	1	2009–2009
White v. Maryland green scotus · 1963	1	1979–1979
Coleman v. Alabama green scotus · 1970	1	1979–1979

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AK § Alaska Stat. § 11.41.100 (3) AK § Alaska Stat. § 11.41.110 (3) AK § Alaska Stat. § 11.56.610 (3) AK § Alaska Stat. § 11.61.200 (3) AK § Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020 (3) USC § 28u.s.c.2254 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 476 (1968–2026) TX 433 (1980–2026) OH 199 (1977–2026) WA 155 (1975–2026) PA 149 (1971–2026) MI 147 (1976–2025) GA 138 (1979–2026) TN 131 (1981–2026) IL 115 (1975–2026) IN 108 (1978–2026) AZ 99 (1971–2026) DC 98 (1978–2026) FL 89 (1982–2026) IA 76 (1980–2025) NJ 71 (1977–2025) MD 65 (1971–2026) NC 65 (1980–2025) DE 64 (1976–2026) OR 61 (1974–2026) AL 59 (1981–2024) CO 51 (1981–2025) WI 51 (1980–2025) VA 51 (1983–2026) CT 49 (1982–2026) MA 46 (1974–2025) MO 46 (1973–2025) KS 45 (1990–2026) NY 44 (1972–2026) MS 44 (1982–2020) LA 38 (1983–2025) MN 36 (1984–2026) NM 36 (1982–2025) UT 36 (1983–2026) OK 29 (1977–2022) ID 29 (1979–2026) KY 24 (1972–2026) ME 22 (1973–2023) MT 20 (1975–2026) WV 18 (1981–2024) RI 18 (1979–2018) NE 18 (1982–2022) SD 15 (1969–2026) HI 15 (1981–2024) NV 14 (1982–2023) AR 13 (1988–2026) WY 13 (1983–2025) SC 12 (1975–2019) AK 10 (1979–2024) ND 10 (2003–2021) VT 10 (1979–2024) VI 7 (2002–2026) GU 4 (1978–2025) NH 2 (1991–2012)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check