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.
7 Virgin Islands opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virgin Islands 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ronald Lee Fitzgerald v. Fred W. Greene, Warden, Mecklenburg Correctional Centergreen2 sentences2011Ed. 2d 78 , (1982); see also Fitzgerald v. Greene, 150 F.3d 357, 364 (4th Cir. 1998). 2009Ed. 2d 78 (1982); see also Fitzgerald v. Greene, 150 F.3d 357, 364 (4th Cir. 1998). | 2 | 2 |
Strunk v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2026See also, Francis v. Virgin Islands, 63 V.1. 724, 746 (2015); Alexander, 78 V.I. 969 , 978 (reaffirming the application of the four Barker factors in the Virgin Islands to a claim of violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial) 7 See Francis, 63 V.I. at 755 3d. ® Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434, 440 (1973) (citing Barker, 407 U.S. at 522 ) 10 Id. " Carty v. People of the V.I, 56 V.E. 345, 365 (2012) '? 2026See also, Francis v. Virgin Islands, 63 V.1. 724, 746 (2015); Alexander, 78 V.I. 969 , 978 (reaffirming the application of the four Barker factors in the Virgin Islands to a claim of violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial) 7 See Francis, 63 V.I. at 755 3d. ® Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434, 440 (1973) (citing Barker, 407 U.S. at 522 ) 10 Id. " Carty v. People of the V.I, 56 V.E. 345, 365 (2012) '? | 1 | 1 |
Ritter v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2014“When a defendant asserts a general Sixth Amendment challenge as to the partiality of a jury based upon circumstances occurring outside of voir dire, ‘the remedy ... is a hearing in which the defendant has the opportunity to prove actual bias.’ ” Ritter v. People, 51 V.I. 354, 371 (V.I. 2009) (quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 215 , 102 S. Ct. 940 , 71 L. | 1 | 1 |
Crawford v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2012Ed. 2d 15 (1985) (no Sixth Amendment violation in having officers testify to statements by a victim incriminating the defendant, where the victim who allegedly made the out-of-court statements also testifies at the trial and is subject to questioning by the accused); see also, State v. Stokes, 381 S.C. 390 , 673 S.E.2d 434, 439 (S.C. 2009) (the Confrontation Clause was not violated where witness’s prior written statement to police was admitted into evidence, even though defense had not asked questions of the witness concerning the statement during cross-examination, because the Confrontation C | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stokesgreen2 sentences2012Ed. 2d 15 (1985) (no Sixth Amendment violation in having officers testify to statements by a victim incriminating the defendant, where the victim who allegedly made the out-of-court statements also testifies at the trial and is subject to questioning by the accused); see also, State v. Stokes, 381 S.C. 390 , 673 S.E.2d 434, 439 (S.C. 2009) (the Confrontation Clause was not violated where witness’s prior written statement to police was admitted into evidence, even though defense had not asked questions of the witness concerning the statement during cross-examination, because the Confrontation C 2012Ed. 2d 15 (1985) (no Sixth Amendment violation in having officers testify to statements by a victim incriminating the defendant, where the victim who allegedly made the out-of-court statements also testifies at the trial and is subject to questioning by the accused); see also, State v. Stokes, 381 S.C. 390 , 673 S.E.2d 434, 439 (S.C. 2009) (the Confrontation Clause was not violated where witness’s prior written statement to police was admitted into evidence, even though defense had not asked questions of the witness concerning the statement during cross-examination, because the Confrontation C | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Moorheadgreen2 sentences2012Supreme LEXIS 8 , at *43 n.20 (quoting United States v. Moorhead, 18 V.I. 431, 433 (D.V.I. 1981)) (noting that a defendant who raises a Sixth Amendment challenge to the partiality of the jury bears the burden of placing on the record sufficient evidence to show “a reasonable likelihood” that the jury cannot be fair). 2012Supreme LEXIS 8 , at *43 n.20 (quoting United States v. Moorhead, 18 V.I. 431, 433 (D.V.I. 1981)) (noting that a defendant who raises a Sixth Amendment challenge to the partiality of the jury bears the burden of placing on the record sufficient evidence to show “a reasonable likelihood” that the jury cannot be fair). | 1 | 1 |
Alex Huerta Suniga v. R.J. Bunnellgreen1 sentence2002Cf. Suniga v. Bunnell, 998 F.2d 664, 667 (9th Cir. 1993) (dicta) (reasoning that structural error may occur “when the court allows the defense to be ambushed with [a jury] instruction that changes the theory of the case at the last minute”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virgin Islands. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Phillips
green
2 sentences2014“When a defendant asserts a general Sixth Amendment challenge as to the partiality of a jury based upon circumstances occurring outside of voir dire, ‘the remedy ... is a hearing in which the defendant has the opportunity to prove actual bias.’ ” Ritter v. People, 51 V.I. 354, 371 (V.I. 2009) (quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 215 , 102 S. Ct. 940 , 71 L. 2014“When a defendant asserts a general Sixth Amendment challenge as to the partiality of a jury based upon circumstances occurring outside of voir dire, ‘the remedy ... is a hearing in which the defendant has the opportunity to prove actual bias.’ ” Ritter v. People, 51 V.I. 354, 371 (V.I. 2009) (quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 215 , 102 S. Ct. 940 , 71 L. | 3 | 2009–2014 |
Barker v. Wingo
green
2 sentences2026Super 17 Page 4 As such, the law is clear that people in the Virgin Islands are equally afforded the right to a speedy trial despite the territory not having a local, speedy trial act q1i =In applying the Sixth Amendment standard to a claim of speedy trial violation, the Court shall evaluate four factors initially adopted in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972): (1) the length of delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) whether the defendant has asserted his or her right; and (4) prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay. 2026Super 17 Page 4 As such, the law is clear that people in the Virgin Islands are equally afforded the right to a speedy trial despite the territory not having a local, speedy trial act q1i =In applying the Sixth Amendment standard to a claim of speedy trial violation, the Court shall evaluate four factors initially adopted in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972): (1) the length of delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) whether the defendant has asserted his or her right; and (4) prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
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.