Barker V. Wingo Factors

231 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Bell v. Lynaugh
  828 F.2d 1085· 5th Cir.· 1987-09-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, that his second confession was voluntary and admissible, and that his other claims regarding jury selection, change of venue, publicity during voir dire, speedy trial, and prosecutorial sum
• United States v. Adil Shahryar
  719 F.2d 1522· 11th Cir.· 1983-11-21 ·cited 26×
  The court held that lodging a federal warrant as a detainer with state authorities does not constitute an 'arrest' under the Speedy Trial Act, and the time limits begin only when the defendant is in federal custody.
• United States v. Rich
  589 F.2d 1025· 10th Cir.· 1978-12-20 ·cited 26×
• United States v. HAY
  527 F.2d 990· 10th Cir.· 1975-12-31 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant was not denied his right to a speedy trial, that the admission of Swiss bank records and deposition testimony was harmless error due to his admissions, and that the evidence established a crime against the United States.
• United States v. Lynch
  499 F.2d 1011· D.C. Cir.· 1974-05-07 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in determining the witness was unavailable, and therefore the admission of her prior testimony was proper.
• Khalid Ali Pasha v. State
  225 So. 3d 688· Fla.· 2017-05-11 ·cited 24×
  Khalid Ali Pasha was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder in a retrial and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions but vacated the death sentences and remanded for a new penalty phase due to the Hurst v. Florida decision requiring jury una
• United States v. Griselda Blanco
  861 F.2d 773· 2d Cir.· 1988-11-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated, nor was her right to a fair trial infringed by evidentiary rulings, and affirmed her conviction.
• United States v. Dennis
  737 F.2d 617· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-14 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a recess for peremptory challenges, a mistrial, or motions for acquittal, and that the speedy trial rights of appellant Dennis were not violated.
• United States v. Fairchild
  526 F.2d 185· 7th Cir.· 1975-11-25 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no violation of the speedy trial right and upholding the denial of the motion to suppress evidence from a warrantless arrest.
• United States v. Quinones
  516 F.2d 1309· 1st Cir.· 1975-04-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Attorney General has discretion to try juveniles as adults without a hearing, and that the defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated. Convictions for distinct crimes and escape were proper, but sentencing requires remand.
• United States v. Lampson
  627 F.2d 62· 7th Cir.· 1980-08-04 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence despite a technical chain of custody issue, excluding certain testimony, finding sufficient evidence for conviction, or denying a speedy trial claim.
• United States v. Grismore
  564 F.2d 929· 10th Cir.· 1977-11-04 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the defendant's arguments regarding Sixth Amendment rights, speedy trial, religious freedom, and witness subpoenas lacked merit and affirmed his conviction.
• United States v. Tercero
  640 F.2d 190· 9th Cir.· 1980-01-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the loss of photographs did not warrant reversal, the defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to rule in advance on the admissibility of prior convictions for impeachment.
• Foster v. State
  348 So. 2d 410· Fla. 1st DCA· 1977-07-27 ·cited 22×
• United States v. Palmer
  537 F.2d 1287· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the 33-month delay between arrest and trial did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
• United States v. Carmine Saglimbene
  471 F.2d 16· 2d Cir.· 1972-12-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated despite a six-year delay between indictment and trial.
• Szembruch v. State
  910 So. 2d 372· Fla. 5th DCA· 2005-09-16 ·cited 21×
  Defendant Szembruch was charged with sexual abuse of a child in 1993, entered a no-contest plea, then had his plea withdrawn on appeal and remanded for retrial. After an eleven-year delay caused by a lost appellate order on a writ of prohibition, he moved to dismiss based on deni
• United States v. Thirion
  813 F.2d 146· 8th Cir.· 1987-03-05 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the doctrine of specialty does not prohibit using conspiracy as an evidentiary fact to prove substantive offenses, and that the district court did not err in denying motions for recusal, severance, or mistrial, nor in refusing a limiting instruction.
• State v. Roundtree
  438 So. 2d 68· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-09-02 ·cited 20×
  The State of Florida appealed the trial court's discharge of David Laverne Roundtree due to violation of his Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial. The appellate court affirmed the discharge, holding that the 23-month delay between filing the information and the hearing on the mo
• United States v. Williams
  558 F.2d 224· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-04 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from the delay in executing the probation violation warrant, and therefore, his due process rights were not violated.
• United States v. Will H. Carpenter
  542 F.2d 1132· 9th Cir.· 1976-10-07 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court's dismissal of the case due to an alleged Speedy Trial Act violation was plain error, as the Act did not authorize dismissal under these circumstances.
• The United States v. Felton
  811 F.2d 190· 3d Cir.· 1987-01-30 ·cited 19×
  The majority's interpretation of the Speedy Trial Act, particularly section 3161(h)(1)(F), allows for excessive delays in bringing cases to trial by permitting indefinite postponements of pre-trial motions.
• United States v. Roemer
  514 F.2d 1377· 2d Cir.· 1975-04-08 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the defendant's trial commenced within the time limits established by the district court's prompt disposition plan and the Sixth Amendment, and that the exclusion of evidence was proper.
• State v. Jenkins
  899 So. 2d 1238· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-04-20 ·cited 18×
  The State appeals the dismissal of an Information charging the defendant with exploitation of an elderly person, grand theft, and fraudulent use of a credit card on speedy trial grounds. The trial court found the State negligently caused a 22-month delay in locating and serving t
• United States v. Ashford
  924 F.2d 1416· 7th Cir.· 1991-02-15 ·cited 18×
  The court concurs with the majority opinion, emphasizing the importance of swift criminal justice administration.
• United States v. Kimmons
  917 F.2d 1011· 7th Cir.· 1990-11-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a five-month delay in receiving a trial transcript did not violate due process without a showing of prejudice, and that the evidence was insufficient to support a conspiracy conviction, as it only established a buyer-seller relationship.
• United States v. Comosona
  848 F.2d 1110· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that statements made by a defendant after invoking the right to counsel are admissible if the defendant initiates further communication and knowingly and intelligently waives that right, and that allegations of prejudice from preindictment and prearraignment delay
• Millard v. Lynaugh
  810 F.2d 1403· 5th Cir.· 1987-03-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition was properly denied as his claims regarding speedy trial, invalid sentence enhancement, double jeopardy, ineffective assistance of counsel, and abuse of writ sanctions were without merit.
• United States v. Juarez-Fierro
  935 F.2d 672· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that jeopardy had not attached when the first indictment was dismissed, and that the defendants' speedy trial rights were not violated. The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. DeCLUE
  899 F.2d 1465· 6th Cir.· 1990-02-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated, the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for tax evasion and false statements, and the district court did not err in admitting certain evidence or expert testimony.
• United States ex rel. Francis A. Mitchell v. Fairman
  750 F.2d 806· 7th Cir.· 1984-12-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner's constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated, despite a significant delay, because he did not actively press for trial and suffered no demonstrable harm.
• Perron v. Perrin
  742 F.2d 669· 1st Cir.· 1984-08-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and denial of a speedy trial were without merit.
• Cain v. Smith
  686 F.2d 374· 6th Cir.· 1982-07-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment without an evidentiary hearing, as the fragmented record required further fact-finding on the speedy trial claim. The 11.5-month delay for a simple robbery was presumptively prejudicial.
• United States v. Sandy
  605 F.2d 210· 6th Cir.· 1979-07-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appellants were not prejudiced by the trial court's application of both pre-Miller and Miller obscenity standards, and that sufficient evidence supported their conspiracy convictions.
• United States v. Huffman
  595 F.2d 551· 10th Cir.· 1979-03-29 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge believes the Double Jeopardy Clause was violated by the second prosecution of Huffman for the same act of theft.
• United States v. Diaz
  535 F.2d 130· 1st Cir.· 1976-05-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial, that electronic monitoring of a conversation with a government informant did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and that the government was not obligated to produce an unavailable informant at trial.
• United States v. Sarvis
  523 F.2d 1177· D.C. Cir.· 1975-11-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court's cautionary instruction regarding immunized witnesses, while not perfectly conforming to prior directions, was harmless error, and the delay between arrest and retrial did not violate the constitutional right to a speedy trial.
• United States v. Kalady
  941 F.2d 1090· 10th Cir.· 1991-08-15 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated, his claim regarding the sentencing recommendation was inapplicable, and the district court adequately explained its reasons for upward departure, though the degree of departure explanation was insufficient
• United States v. Towill
  548 F.2d 1363· 9th Cir.· 1977-02-24 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing Count I because the § 6531 complaint procedure was available and established probable cause, but affirmed the dismissal of Count II with prejudice due to the Government's failure to prosecute after being warned.
• United States v. Kaylor
  877 F.2d 658· 8th Cir.· 1989-06-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague, the evidence was sufficient to establish replacement cost, discovery was properly denied, speedy trial rights were not violated, and evidence was legally seized.
• United States v. Sears
  877 F.2d 734· 9th Cir.· 1989-01-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the indictment under the Speedy Trial Act, Fed.R.Crim.P. 48(b), and the Sixth Amendment. The court found the delay did not warrant dismissal under these provisions.
• Payne v. Rees
  738 F.2d 118· 6th Cir.· 1984-06-27 ·cited 14×
  A state prisoner seeking federal habeas corpus relief after a procedural default in state court must demonstrate cause and actual prejudice for the default, and failure to raise identification issues on direct appeal bars relief.
• United States v. Bounos
  730 F.2d 468· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-12 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that the evidence supported findings of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and unlawful firearm possession, and that the dismissal/reindictment procedure did not violate the Speedy Trial Act or constitutional speedy tri
• Cobb v. Aytch
  643 F.2d 946· 3d Cir.· 1981-03-04 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and reversed in part the district court's judgment. It affirmed the denial of relief for sentenced inmates, finding no state law expectation regarding their place of confinement. It vacated the injunction for pretrial detainees, remand
• United States v. Costanza
  549 F.2d 1126· 8th Cir.· 1977-02-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the delay between the search and indictment did not violate due process or speedy trial rights, and that the failure to identify all potential interceptees in wiretap applications did not require suppression where prejudice was not shown.
• United States v. Lemmons
  527 F.2d 662· 6th Cir.· 1975-12-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a five-day delay in executing a search warrant was reasonable due to the agent's illness, probable cause existed for the arrest, and fingerprint testimony was admissible under the business records exception.
• United States v. Furey
  514 F.2d 1098· 2d Cir.· 1975-02-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court has the power to adopt a rule for prompt disposition of criminal cases, including the sanction of dismissal with prejudice for unexcusable delay, and that Rule 50(b) and Rule 4 of the Eastern District Plan are valid.
• United States v. McCONAHY
  505 F.2d 770· 7th Cir.· 1974-11-05 ·cited 14×
  The government has a constitutional duty to make a diligent, good-faith effort to bring a defendant incarcerated abroad for trial upon the defendant's request, and failure to do so violates the right to a speedy trial.
• United States v. Skeens
  494 F.2d 1050· D.C. Cir.· 1974-01-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the identification procedures were not unduly suggestive and that the convictions should be upheld.
• State v. Jimenez
  44 So. 3d 1230· Fla. 5th DCA· 2010-10-01 ·cited 13×
  The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's discharge of a defendant for speedy trial violations, holding that a defendant is not automatically discharged when the State files charges within the speedy trial period but fails to notify the defendant until a