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.
8 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barker v. Wingogreen2 sentences2021The Sixth Amendment provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial . . . .” In Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972), the Supreme Court set forth a four part test to determine whether the constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated. 2003An alleged violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial is examined under the four part test first announced in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 531 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). | 2 | 5 |
Arnett v. Stategreen2 sentences1998Arnett v. State, 532 So.2d 1003, 1008-09 (Miss.1988)(citing the test set out in United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 , 107 S.Ct. 1134 , 94 L.Ed.2d 326 (1987)). 1996Arnett v. State, 532 So.2d 1003, 1008-09 (Miss. 1988) (citing the test set out in United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987)). | 2 | 2 |
Havard v. Stategreen1 sentence2023“Under the test, it is the defendant’s burden to prove: ‘(a) that the State possessed evidence favorable to the defendant (including impeachment evidence); (b) that the defendant does not possess the evidence nor could he obtain it himself with any reasonable diligence; (c) that the prosecution suppressed the favorable evidence; and (d) that had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.’” Havard v. State, 86 So. 3d 896, 900 (Miss. 2012) (quoting Manning v. State, 929 So. 2d 885, 891 (Miss. 2006)). | 1 | 1 |
King v. Stategreen1 sentence2023The Court adopted a four part test in King v. State, 656 So. 2d 1168, 1174 (Miss. 1995), to assess whether a Brady violation had taken place. | 1 | 1 |
Manning v. Stategreen1 sentence2023“Under the test, it is the defendant’s burden to prove: ‘(a) that the State possessed evidence favorable to the defendant (including impeachment evidence); (b) that the defendant does not possess the evidence nor could he obtain it himself with any reasonable diligence; (c) that the prosecution suppressed the favorable evidence; and (d) that had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.’” Havard v. State, 86 So. 3d 896, 900 (Miss. 2012) (quoting Manning v. State, 929 So. 2d 885, 891 (Miss. 2006)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Dunn
green
2 sentences1998Arnett v. State, 532 So.2d 1003, 1008-09 (Miss.1988)(citing the test set out in United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 , 107 S.Ct. 1134 , 94 L.Ed.2d 326 (1987)). 1998Arnett v. State, 532 So.2d 1003, 1008-09 (Miss.1988)(citing the test set out in United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 , 107 S.Ct. 1134 , 94 L.Ed.2d 326 (1987)). | 2 | 1996–1998 |
Adrian Donte Wilson v. State of Mississippi
green
1 sentence2021The test requires the reviewing court to balance “(1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion of the speedy-trial right; and (4) prejudice to the defendant.” Wilson 11 v. State, 276 So. 3d 1241 ,1259 (¶44) (Miss. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.