7 Virgin Islands opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Jerome Thomasgreen2 sentences2016Francis, 63 V.I. at 752-753 (holding that “the failure to assert the right will make it difficult for a defendant to prove that he was denied a speedy trial” (quoting United States v. Thomas, 55 F.3d 144, 150 (4th Cir. 1995)); United States v. Hassebrock, 663 F.3d 906, 915 (7th Cir. 2011); People v. Bancroft, 23 A.D.3d 850 , 803 N.Y.S.2d 824, 825-26 (2005) (defendant’s failure to make a pretrial motion tp dismiss the indictment or object on grounds of a speedy trial violation precluded the defendant from seeking appellate review on that issue). 2015Although not dispositive of a successful Sixth Amendment speedy-trial claim, “the failure to assert the right will make it difficult for a defendant to prove that he was denied a speedy trial.” United States v. Thomas, 55 F.3d 144, 150 (4th Cir. 1995) (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 532 ); see Estrada v. State, 611 P.2d 850, 853 (Wyo. 1980). “[T]he accused’s various responses to the delays must be evaluated based on the surrounding circumstances — such as the timeliness, persistence, and sincerity of the objections, the reasons for the acquiescence, whether the accused was represented by counsel, | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Santiago-Becerrilgreen1 sentence2026See also United States v. Black, 918 F.3d 1099 (10th Cir. 2016) and United States v. Santiago-Becerril, 130 F.3d 11 (3d Cir. 2019) (observing that none of these factors alone is > A defendant on bail is entitled to the speedy trial defense under the Sixth Amendment. | 1 | 1 |
Doggett v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2026The reason(s) for the delay(s) impacts the weight given a particular delay.!° Delays attributed to the People weigh in favor of a defendant’s speedy trial claim, while delays attributed to the defendant do not.'® As explained by the United States Supreme Court in Barker, different reasons for the delay must be weighed differently.'!’ In the Court’s evaluation deliberate attempts by the prosecution to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense weigh heavily against the prosecution.'* But, neutral reasons such as negligence or overcrowded courts weigh less heavily against the prosecution, an 2026The reason(s) for the delay(s) impacts the weight given a particular delay.!° Delays attributed to the People weigh in favor of a defendant’s speedy trial claim, while delays attributed to the defendant do not.'® As explained by the United States Supreme Court in Barker, different reasons for the delay must be weighed differently.'!’ In the Court’s evaluation deliberate attempts by the prosecution to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense weigh heavily against the prosecution.'* But, neutral reasons such as negligence or overcrowded courts weigh less heavily against the prosecution, an | 1 | 1 |
cluster 10856468green1 sentence2026See, e.g., Brown, 55 V.1 Penn v. People 2026 VI 6 S. Ct. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Hassebrockgreen1 sentence2016Francis, 63 V.I. at 752-753 (holding that “the failure to assert the right will make it difficult for a defendant to prove that he was denied a speedy trial” (quoting United States v. Thomas, 55 F.3d 144, 150 (4th Cir. 1995)); United States v. Hassebrock, 663 F.3d 906, 915 (7th Cir. 2011); People v. Bancroft, 23 A.D.3d 850 , 803 N.Y.S.2d 824, 825-26 (2005) (defendant’s failure to make a pretrial motion tp dismiss the indictment or object on grounds of a speedy trial violation precluded the defendant from seeking appellate review on that issue). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bancroftgreen2 sentences2016Francis, 63 V.I. at 752-753 (holding that “the failure to assert the right will make it difficult for a defendant to prove that he was denied a speedy trial” (quoting United States v. Thomas, 55 F.3d 144, 150 (4th Cir. 1995)); United States v. Hassebrock, 663 F.3d 906, 915 (7th Cir. 2011); People v. Bancroft, 23 A.D.3d 850 , 803 N.Y.S.2d 824, 825-26 (2005) (defendant’s failure to make a pretrial motion tp dismiss the indictment or object on grounds of a speedy trial violation precluded the defendant from seeking appellate review on that issue). 2016Francis, 63 V.I. at 752-753 (holding that “the failure to assert the right will make it difficult for a defendant to prove that he was denied a speedy trial” (quoting United States v. Thomas, 55 F.3d 144, 150 (4th Cir. 1995)); United States v. Hassebrock, 663 F.3d 906, 915 (7th Cir. 2011); People v. Bancroft, 23 A.D.3d 850 , 803 N.Y.S.2d 824, 825-26 (2005) (defendant’s failure to make a pretrial motion tp dismiss the indictment or object on grounds of a speedy trial violation precluded the defendant from seeking appellate review on that issue). | 1 | 1 |
Francis v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2016Francis, 63 V.I. at 748 (citing Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81, 82 , 129 S. Ct. 1283 , 173 L. 2016Francis, 63 V.I. at 752-753 (holding that “the failure to assert the right will make it difficult for a defendant to prove that he was denied a speedy trial” (quoting United States v. Thomas, 55 F.3d 144, 150 (4th Cir. 1995)); United States v. Hassebrock, 663 F.3d 906, 915 (7th Cir. 2011); People v. Bancroft, 23 A.D.3d 850 , 803 N.Y.S.2d 824, 825-26 (2005) (defendant’s failure to make a pretrial motion tp dismiss the indictment or object on grounds of a speedy trial violation precluded the defendant from seeking appellate review on that issue). | 1 | 1 |
Michael Taylor v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2016See Taylor v. State, 162 So. 3d 780, 787 (Miss. 2015) (holding that “unquestionable lack of actual prejudice” weighs against a finding of a speedy trial violation). | 1 | 1 |
Estrada v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Although not dispositive of a successful Sixth Amendment speedy-trial claim, “the failure to assert the right will make it difficult for a defendant to prove that he was denied a speedy trial.” United States v. Thomas, 55 F.3d 144, 150 (4th Cir. 1995) (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 532 ); see Estrada v. State, 611 P.2d 850, 853 (Wyo. 1980). “[T]he accused’s various responses to the delays must be evaluated based on the surrounding circumstances — such as the timeliness, persistence, and sincerity of the objections, the reasons for the acquiescence, whether the accused was represented by counsel, | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ariegwegreen2 sentences2015Although not dispositive of a successful Sixth Amendment speedy-trial claim, “the failure to assert the right will make it difficult for a defendant to prove that he was denied a speedy trial.” United States v. Thomas, 55 F.3d 144, 150 (4th Cir. 1995) (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 532 ); see Estrada v. State, 611 P.2d 850, 853 (Wyo. 1980). “[T]he accused’s various responses to the delays must be evaluated based on the surrounding circumstances — such as the timeliness, persistence, and sincerity of the objections, the reasons for the acquiescence, whether the accused was represented by counsel, 2015Although not dispositive of a successful Sixth Amendment speedy-trial claim, “the failure to assert the right will make it difficult for a defendant to prove that he was denied a speedy trial.” United States v. Thomas, 55 F.3d 144, 150 (4th Cir. 1995) (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 532 ); see Estrada v. State, 611 P.2d 850, 853 (Wyo. 1980). “[T]he accused’s various responses to the delays must be evaluated based on the surrounding circumstances — such as the timeliness, persistence, and sincerity of the objections, the reasons for the acquiescence, whether the accused was represented by counsel, | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Loud Hawkgreen2 sentences2015Although not dispositive of a successful Sixth Amendment speedy-trial claim, “the failure to assert the right will make it difficult for a defendant to prove that he was denied a speedy trial.” United States v. Thomas, 55 F.3d 144, 150 (4th Cir. 1995) (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 532 ); see Estrada v. State, 611 P.2d 850, 853 (Wyo. 1980). “[T]he accused’s various responses to the delays must be evaluated based on the surrounding circumstances — such as the timeliness, persistence, and sincerity of the objections, the reasons for the acquiescence, whether the accused was represented by counsel, 2015Although not dispositive of a successful Sixth Amendment speedy-trial claim, “the failure to assert the right will make it difficult for a defendant to prove that he was denied a speedy trial.” United States v. Thomas, 55 F.3d 144, 150 (4th Cir. 1995) (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 532 ); see Estrada v. State, 611 P.2d 850, 853 (Wyo. 1980). “[T]he accused’s various responses to the delays must be evaluated based on the surrounding circumstances — such as the timeliness, persistence, and sincerity of the objections, the reasons for the acquiescence, whether the accused was represented by counsel, | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Bryant Jones, Curtis Young, and Donnis Glen Humphreygreen1 sentence1990United States v. Jones, 808 F.2d 561, 567 (7th Cir. 1986) Cert. denied 481 U.S. 1006 (1987). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barker v. Wingo
green
2 sentences2026The reason(s) for the delay(s) impacts the weight given a particular delay.!° Delays attributed to the People weigh in favor of a defendant’s speedy trial claim, while delays attributed to the defendant do not.'® As explained by the United States Supreme Court in Barker, different reasons for the delay must be weighed differently.'!’ In the Court’s evaluation deliberate attempts by the prosecution to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense weigh heavily against the prosecution.'* But, neutral reasons such as negligence or overcrowded courts weigh less heavily against the prosecution, an 2026The reason(s) for the delay(s) impacts the weight given a particular delay.!° Delays attributed to the People weigh in favor of a defendant’s speedy trial claim, while delays attributed to the defendant do not.'® As explained by the United States Supreme Court in Barker, different reasons for the delay must be weighed differently.'!’ In the Court’s evaluation deliberate attempts by the prosecution to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense weigh heavily against the prosecution.'* But, neutral reasons such as negligence or overcrowded courts weigh less heavily against the prosecution, an | 3 | 2015–2026 |
Carty v. People
green
2 sentences2016A court evaluating a speedy trial violation must take into consideration four factors: “(1) the length of delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion of his rights; and (4) prejudice to the defendant.” Id. at 744 (quoting Carty, 56 V.I. at 364 (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 , 92 S. Ct. 2182 , 33 L. 2016A court evaluating a speedy trial violation must take into consideration four factors: “(1) the length of delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion of his rights; and (4) prejudice to the defendant.” Id. at 744 (quoting Carty, 56 V.I. at 364 (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 , 92 S. Ct. 2182 , 33 L. | 2 | 2015–2016 |
Vermont v. Brillon
green
2 sentences2016Francis, 63 V.I. at 748 (citing Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81, 82 , 129 S. Ct. 1283 , 173 L. 2016Francis, 63 V.I. at 748 (citing Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81, 82 , 129 S. Ct. 1283 , 173 L. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Woodrup v. People
green
1 sentence2016“Under plain error review, there must be an error, that was plain, that affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” Woodrup, 63 V.I. at 720 (quoting Webster, 60 V.I. at 672 ). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Webster v. People
green
1 sentence2016“Under plain error review, there must be an error, that was plain, that affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” Woodrup, 63 V.I. at 720 (quoting Webster, 60 V.I. at 672 ). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
United States v. MacDonald
green
2 sentences2010The United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in United States v. McDonald, 456 U.S. 1 , 102 S. Ct. 1497 , 71 L. 2010The United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in United States v. McDonald, 456 U.S. 1 , 102 S. Ct. 1497 , 71 L. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Frappier v. United States
green
1 sentence1990United States v. Jones, 808 F.2d 561, 567 (7th Cir. 1986) Cert. denied 481 U.S. 1006 (1987). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.