Barker V. Wingo Factors

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

• Rayborn v. Scully
  858 F.2d 84· 2d Cir.· 1988-09-20 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, holding that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated despite a seven-year delay.
• United States v. Gandara
  586 F.2d 1156· 7th Cir.· 1978-11-15 ·cited 12×
  The dissenting judge believes the defendant was prejudiced by the erroneous admission of evidence relating to a prior transaction on July 5, 1977, which was not the subject of the charge.
• United States v. Wedalowski
  572 F.2d 69· 2d Cir.· 1978-03-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the government's appeal was not barred by double jeopardy because jeopardy had not attached, and that the district court erred in dismissing the indictment for untimeliness.
• United States v. Cary Glenn Blalock and Michael Eugene Fiedler
  564 F.2d 1180· 5th Cir.· 1977-12-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the government's comments on Fiedler's post-arrest silence were permissible given his defense strategy, and Blalock's guilt-by-association tactic was harmless error.
• United States v. Wyers
  546 F.2d 599· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-26 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in the jury selection, speedy trial, prosecutorial questioning, or sufficiency of evidence claims.
• United States v. Brown
  520 F.2d 1106· D.C. Cir.· 1975-08-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appellant was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial due to excessive and unjustified delays.
• United States v. Black
  480 F.2d 504· 6th Cir.· 1973-06-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Brooks decision, extending Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination, should be applied prospectively, meaning it applies to critical stages occurring after the Brooks decision.
• Favors v. Eyman
  466 F.2d 1325· 9th Cir.· 1972-09-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the filing of a complaint does not trigger the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, and a prosecutor's improper comment on a defendant's silence can be harmless error.
• Zoltan Takacs v. Engle
  768 F.2d 122· 6th Cir.· 1985-07-23 ·cited 11×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the denial of counsel at a preliminary hearing is subject to harmless error analysis, and that a conviction based solely on uncorroborated accomplice testimony does not violate due process.
• United States v. Antwine
  873 F.2d 1144· 8th Cir.· 1989-05-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the handgun was admissible evidence, the jury verdict was unanimous, and the defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated.
• United States ex rel. James Barksdale v. Allyn R. Sielaff
  585 F.2d 288· 7th Cir.· 1978-10-11 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of speedy trial and evidentiary claims, but reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the Fourth Amendment claim based on Stone v. Powell.
• United States v. Hershel Doyle Martin
  543 F.2d 577· 6th Cir.· 1976-11-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to show the defendant's participation in the conspiracy, and that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated.
• United States v. Ramirez
  524 F.2d 283· 10th Cir.· 1975-10-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the delay in bringing the defendant to trial did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial because the defendant suffered no prejudice.
• United States v. Frank Cacciatore & 1463 Rest. Corp.
  487 F.2d 240· 2d Cir.· 1973-11-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district judge abused his discretion by dismissing the indictment for failure to prosecute and denial of a speedy trial, given the specific facts of witness unavailability and the court's scheduling.
• United States v. Smith
  487 F.2d 175· 5th Cir.· 1973-11-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that pre-indictment delay does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial unless actual prejudice is shown, and the appellant failed to demonstrate such prejudice.
• Seymour v. State
  738 So. 2d 984· Fla. 2d DCA· 1999-07-09 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated due to a lengthy delay, the State's negligence, and prejudice from a key witness's death.
• United States v. Wragge
  893 F.2d 1296· 11th Cir.· 1990-02-07 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court's finding regarding when the defendant first learned of his right to a speedy trial was inadequately supported for appellate review. The court vacated the dismissal and remanded for further factfinding.
• Williams v. State
  226 So. 3d 758· Fla.· 2017-06-29 ·cited 8×
  Ronnie Keith Williams, convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed most post-conviction denials but vacated his death sentence and remanded for a new penalty phase based
• United States v. Mitchell
  957 F.2d 465· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's pretrial motions to dismiss the indictment, nor in refusing to provide a jury instruction defining 'reasonable doubt'.
• Davis v. Puckett
  857 F.2d 1035· 5th Cir.· 1988-10-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the police may have violated Davis's right to counsel by reinitiating interrogation, federal habeas relief was barred by Mississippi's procedural default rule. The court also found no constitutional violation regarding prosecutorial comments or the speed
• United States v. Al Phillips
  775 F.2d 1454· 11th Cir.· 1985-11-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the indictment with prejudice under the Speedy Trial Act, as the delay was slight and the government was not at fault.
• State v. Borges
  467 So. 2d 375· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-03-20 ·cited 8×
  The State of Florida appealed the trial court's dismissal of charges against George Borges, Ralph Borges, and Mary Ann Yglesia on the ground that the State's 137-day delay in filing charges created an unconstitutional 'Hobson's choice' between waiving speedy trial rights and adeq
• United States v. Greene
  737 F.2d 572· 6th Cir.· 1984-06-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant was not denied due process or a speedy trial due to pre- or post-indictment delay, nor were other trial errors meritorious.
• United States v. Diaz-Alvarado
  587 F.2d 1002· 9th Cir.· 1978-12-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellants were not denied their right to a speedy trial and affirmed their convictions.
• United States v. Buffington
  578 F.2d 213· 8th Cir.· 1978-06-26 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding the indictment sufficient and rejecting claims of Speedy Trial Act and Sixth Amendment violations.
• United States ex rel. Tobia L. Spina v. McQUILLAN
  525 F.2d 813· 2d Cir.· 1975-07-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a prima facie case for denial of his speedy trial right, as he did not affirmatively assert this right during the twenty-six month delay between indictment and trial, and the record did not support claims of prejudice.
• United States v. Churchill
  483 F.2d 268· 1st Cir.· 1973-08-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the government's use of civil proceedings to gather evidence was permissible, the appellant's speedy trial and due process rights were not violated by pre- or post-indictment delays, and the use of illustrative charts without direct proof for one transaction s
• Hargrove v. State
  281 So. 2d 390· Fla. 2d DCA· 1973-08-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant was not taken into custody on the Pasco County charges in June, and therefore the speedy trial rule was not triggered at that time.
• United States v. Stapleton
  39 F.4th 1320· 11th Cir.· 2022-07-12 ·cited 7×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the government's delay in extradition did not violate the defendant's speedy trial rights, the indictment was not multiplicitous or insufficiently specific, and the district court did not err in admitting evidence of migrant abuse o
• Ferris v. State
  475 So. 2d 201· Fla.· 1985-08-29 ·cited 7×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a trial court may grant an indefinite extension of speedy trial deadlines when exceptional circumstances justify the delay, rejecting the rule that extensions must specify a particular date. The defendant retains constitutional rights to a spee
• United States v. Beamon
  992 F.2d 1009· 9th Cir.· 1993-05-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the 17 and 20-month delays between indictment and arrest, while negligent, were not so lengthy or prejudicial as to violate the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, and affirmed the denial of a downward sentencing departure for aberrant behavior.
• United States v. Adelard Vachon
  869 F.2d 653· 1st Cir.· 1989-03-15 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions for bank robbery and contempt, finding no legal error in the district court's rulings on competency, pretrial detention, speedy trial, evidence admission, and contempt proceedings.
• Redd v. Sowders
  809 F.2d 1266· 6th Cir.· 1987-01-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellee was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial, affirming the district court's grant of a writ of habeas corpus.
• United States v. TWO Hundred Ninety-Five Ivory Carvings and Marvin Segal
  726 F.2d 529· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's summary judgment based on due process delay was improper without applying the Barker v. Wingo factors, as clarified by the Supreme Court.
• United States v. Domingo Hernandez
  724 F.2d 904· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act clock began running on the date of the defendant's arraignment under the second indictment, not the date of reindictment, and that the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice for his Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim.
• Terry v. Duckworth
  715 F.2d 1217· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's thirty-two month delay between charge and arrest did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
• State v. Blankenship
  422 So. 2d 1059· Fla. 2d DCA· 1982-12-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court erred in discharging the appellee for a speedy trial violation because the appellee had waived his speedy trial rights indefinitely and had not reasserted them before moving for discharge.
• United States v. Holm
  550 F.2d 568· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction was valid despite the use of a superseded indictment and that the delay in bringing the indictment did not violate his Fifth Amendment rights.
• United States v. George Francis Schs.
  486 F.2d 557· 5th Cir.· 1973-10-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the seven-month delay between the offense and indictment did not violate the appellant's Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights, nor was the sentence imposed improper.
• Torres v. State
  477 F.2d 555· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's constitutional right to a speedy trial was not denied despite a seventeen-month delay between arrest and trial.
• Burkett v. Fulcomer
  951 F.2d 1431· 3d Cir.· 1991-12-20 ·cited 5×
  The majority found a constitutional violation due to delay in sentencing and appeal, while the dissent disagreed, emphasizing lack of demonstrable prejudice.
• Glidewell v. Burden
  822 F.2d 1027· 11th Cir.· 1987-07-27 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the nine-month delay between arrest and trial, absent prejudice, did not violate the constitutional right to a speedy trial.
• United States v. MacDONALD
  635 F.2d 1115· 4th Cir.· 1980-12-18 ·cited 5×
• United States v. Gorthy
  550 F.2d 1051· 5th Cir.· 1977-04-15 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the seizure of marijuana was lawful due to probable cause and that the defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated.
• United States v. Vargas
  97 F.4th 1277· 11th Cir.· 2024-04-03 ·cited 4×
  Victor Vargas appealed his drug trafficking convictions, claiming the government violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial by waiting thirty-five months between his indictment in September 2018 and his arrest in August 2021. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district c
• United States v. Wangrow
  924 F.2d 1434· 8th Cir.· 1991-02-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated by the delays in prosecution or the government's failure to extradite him from Mexico.
• United States v. Vasquez
  918 F.2d 329· 2d Cir.· 1990-11-02 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the delays in the proceedings were excludable under the Speedy Trial Act and did not violate the defendants' constitutional rights.
• United States v. Lewis
  907 F.2d 773· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the circumstances of the delay were insufficient to justify a finding that the defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated.
• United States v. Rasmussen
  881 F.2d 395· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the thirteen-month delay in holding the probation revocation hearing and the denial of a continuance did not violate the defendant's due process rights or Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
• Montalvo v. United States
  862 F.2d 425· 2d Cir.· 1988-12-01 ·cited 4×
  The Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights were not violated, and the district court did not err in summarily dismissing the Section 2255 motion.