Prejudice From Delay

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

• United States v. Massaro
  544 F.2d 547· 1st Cir.· 1976-11-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that neither the delay in arraignment nor the admission of an eyewitness identification made after a chance encounter violated the defendant's speedy trial or due process rights.
• United States v. Rael
  467 F.2d 333· 10th Cir.· 1972-10-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a search warrant affidavit, when attached to and served with the warrant, satisfies statutory requirements for probable cause, and a delay in execution is permissible if reasonable and without prejudice.
• Forrest Brooks, Jr. v. United States
  423 F.2d 1149· 8th Cir.· 1970-04-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the delay in sentencing did not violate the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial because the delay was not purposeful or oppressive.
• 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. Ferguson
  498 F.2d 1001· D.C. Cir.· 1974-04-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the government's failure to disclose the identity of an informant until after his disappearance, and its misleading assurances about his availability, prejudiced the defendant's right to interview and potentially call the informant as a witness, and also preju
• United States v. Lara
  520 F.2d 460· D.C. Cir.· 1975-10-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the government's "court shopping" and subsequent delays constituted a denial of speedy trial rights for defendants named in earlier indictments, but not for those newly indicted in Florida. The court affirmed dismissal for the former and reversed/remanded for
• United States v. Frost
  431 F.2d 1249· 1st Cir.· 1970-10-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant's constitutional and procedural rights to a speedy trial were not violated, and the district court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss or excluding entrapment testimony.
• Carroll v. United States
  392 F.2d 185· 1st Cir.· 1968-04-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish a denial of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, as the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous.
• United States v. Dennard
  722 F.2d 1510· 11th Cir.· 1984-01-16 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the fifteen-month delay in unsealing the indictment against Dennard violated his Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights, warranting dismissal. For Verduzco, the record was insufficient to determine prejudice from the delay, requiring remand.
• THE Florida BAR v. Rubin
  709 So. 2d 1361· Fla.· 1998-04-16 ·cited 10×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld disciplinary sanctions against attorney Michael Barry Rubin for violating professional conduct rules by attempting to resolve a fee dispute through civil litigation rather than following proper contingent fee agreement procedures. The Court reject
• Bert ONG, D.M.D. v. Dep't OF Prof'l Reg. & Fla. State Bd. of Dentistry
  565 So. 2d 1384· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-08-23 ·cited 10×
  A dentist appeals a disciplinary order imposing a reprimand, fine, and 90-day license suspension for negligent treatment and inadequate record-keeping. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirms the Board's decision, rejecting arguments based on statutes of limitations, laches, d
• Harrington v. Vida Appliance Corp. & Gulf Ins. Co.
  542 So. 2d 1006· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-12-08 ·cited 10×
• United States v. Causey
  835 F.2d 1527· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-11 ·cited 10×
  A conviction will not be set aside due to delay in bringing a defendant before a magistrate unless the defendant shows prejudice from the delay.
• United States v. Anderton
  752 F.2d 1005· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that even if the government violated the Speedy Trial Act by failing to notify a defendant in state custody of a federal indictment, dismissal is not warranted without a showing of prejudice or improper prosecutorial motive, neither of which was demonstrated.
• Regan, Inc. v. Val-Ro, Ltd.
  396 So. 2d 834· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-04-09 ·cited 10×
  Regan, Inc. appealed a trial court's order staying a foreclosure sale for ninety days. The court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the stay because Regan would be prejudiced by the delay and the validity of the foreclosure judgment was uncha
• Barker v. Wingo
  442 F.2d 1141· 6th Cir.· 1971-05-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated by the five-year delay between indictment and trial under the circumstances presented.
• United States v. Bennett
  364 F.2d 499· 2d Cir.· 1966-07-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellant's claims regarding pre-arrest and post-arrest delay, as well as the admissibility of post-arrest statements, were waived due to failure to object at trial.
• Compo v. State
  525 So. 2d 505· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-05-27 ·cited 9×
  The court held that a trial commences for speedy trial purposes upon the swearing of the jury panel for voir dire examination, and a defendant must demonstrate prejudice from any subsequent trial delay.
• Rizzo v. United States
  821 F.2d 1271· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that dismissal of a Section 2255 motion based on laches was improper without evidence of prejudice or notice to the movant, and that a sentence based on uncounselled juvenile adjudications may be unconstitutional.
• Prado McGEE, Jr. v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  732 F.2d 447· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the use of a constitutionally invalid prior conviction for sentence enhancement, when that conviction was specifically alleged in the indictment, cannot be considered harmless error, even if other valid convictions exist. The court also found that the district
• Alexander v. State OF Md.
  719 F.2d 1241· 4th Cir.· 1983-10-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the state failed to prove Alexander would have been waived to adult court in 1961, and that his petition was not barred by laches under Habeas Rule 9(a).
• Gereca v. State
  336 So. 2d 709· Fla. 4th DCA· 1976-08-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a one-week delay from the scheduled trial date, after exceptional circumstances were found to justify an extension of speedy trial time, was not prejudicial and did not deny the defendant his right to a speedy trial.
• 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
• United States v. Cook
  463 F.2d 123· 5th Cir.· 1972-07-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction based on guilty pleas should be affirmed, as he failed to demonstrate prejudice from pre-prosecution delay or delay between information filing and trial.
• United States v. Baker
  424 F.2d 968· 4th Cir.· 1970-04-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a mere showing of delay in indictment and arrest is insufficient to show a constitutional violation; prejudice must be proven by the defendant.
• Habib v. Maison DU VIN Francais, Inc.
  528 So. 2d 553· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-07-27 ·cited 6×
• State OF Mo. v. Bowen
  813 F.2d 864· 8th Cir.· 1987-03-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) noncompliance with its own 60-day regulation for processing a cost allocation plan amendment did not constitute 'deemed approval' and that Missouri had not demonstrated prejudice from the delay.
• 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.
• Dep't OF Transp. v. Courtelis Co.
  436 So. 2d 92· Fla.· 1983-07-28 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a Third District Court of Appeal decision that reversed the Department of Transportation's final order because it was issued 111 days after the hearing officer's recommended order, violating a 90-day statutory deadline. The Supreme Court disagre
• Yates v. State
  317 So. 2d 462· Fla. 1st DCA· 1975-06-30 ·cited 6×
  Roy Yates appealed his conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, challenging the admission of his confession due to delayed appointment of counsel and the imposition of separate consecutive sentences
• United States v. Erwin E. Cooper
  504 F.2d 260· D.C. Cir.· 1974-09-13 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed convictions, finding that while speedy trial delays and Miranda issues were present, they did not warrant reversal due to lack of significant prejudice and deference to the trial court's findings.
• Short v. Cardwell
  444 F.2d 1368· 6th Cir.· 1971-07-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district judge erred in denying an evidentiary hearing on the appellant's claims of prejudice due to delay and deprivation of counsel, vacating the judgment and remanding for such a hearing.
• United States v. Arcelious Moss
  438 F.2d 147· D.C. Cir.· 1970-12-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for violating the Bail Reform Act was valid, as there was sufficient evidence and no constitutional violations.
• White v. State
  76 So. 3d 335· Fla. 3d DCA· 2011-11-16 ·cited 5×
  Charles E. White appeals his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder and related crimes, arguing that his confession should be suppressed due to a delay in presenting him to a magistrate under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.130, and challenging the admission of he
• Christiania Gen. Ins. Corp. OF NEW York v. Great Am. Ins. Co.
  979 F.2d 268· 2d Cir.· 1992-09-03 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court erred in determining that the notice provision in the reinsurance certificates was triggered no earlier than April 1987, and that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding when the notice obligation arose and whether it was satisfied.
• 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.
• Cortinas v. United States Parole Comm'n
  938 F.2d 43· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Parole Commission had the authority to revoke parole and forfeit street time, and that Cortinas's claims of unreasonable delay, ex post facto violation, and double jeopardy were without merit.
• AVD Enters., Inc. v. Network Sec. Acceptance Corp.
  555 So. 2d 401· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-12-05 ·cited 4×
  AVD Enterprises and its president Garcia appealed a default judgment entered against them for discovery violations in a contract dispute with Network Security. The court affirmed the default as to the corporation AVD but reversed it as to Garcia individually, finding he was not p
• LEE v. State
  487 So. 2d 1202· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-05-01 ·cited 4×
  Freddie Lee appealed his resentencing for armed robbery, challenging a three-year delay between remand and resentencing as a violation of his due process and speedy trial rights. The court held that the Sixth Amendment speedy trial guarantee does not apply to sentencing procedure
• Brown v. EF Hutton & Co., Inc.
  610 F. Supp. 76· S.D. Fla.· 1985-04-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant did not waive its right to arbitration of state law claims despite the delay in seeking arbitration, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate prejudice and the amended complaint allowed the defendant to plead anew.
• State v. Moore
  423 So. 2d 1010· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-12-29 ·cited 4×
  The State appeals from an order dismissing a criminal prosecution for aggravated battery and weapons possession based on alleged prosecutorial delay. The court reverses, holding that the defendant's motion to dismiss was insufficiently specific and conclusory to require a state t
• Powers v. White
  680 F.2d 51· 8th Cir.· 1982-06-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant failed to establish a constitutional violation of his speedy trial rights, affirming the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• United States v. Wilder
  680 F.2d 59· 9th Cir.· 1982-06-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant's numerous arguments on appeal were frivolous and that the judgment and sentence were affirmed.
• United States v. Watson
  690 F.2d 15· 2d Cir.· 1979-04-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that even when a sealed indictment is unsealed after the statute of limitations has expired, dismissal is required if the defendant can show substantial actual prejudice, regardless of prosecutorial interest.
• United States v. Stribling
  469 F.2d 443· 6th Cir.· 1972-10-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated, nor was there an unnecessary delay under Rule 48(b), as the delays were primarily caused by the defendant's requests for continuances.
• United States v. Heard
  443 F.2d 856· 6th Cir.· 1971-06-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the delay in bringing the appellants to trial did not violate their constitutional right to a speedy trial, and there was no fatal variance between the indictment and the proofs.
• United States v. Butler
  434 F.2d 243· 1st Cir.· 1970-11-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that despite a lengthy delay between indictment and arraignment, the conviction would be affirmed because the defendant was aware of his speedy trial rights, diligently sought to exercise them, and suffered no prejudice from the delay.
• Davis v. Dep't OF Revenue
  689 So. 2d 433· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-03-14 ·cited 3×
  A father challenged a mother's suit for fifteen years of back child support by asserting the defense of laches. The trial court denied the laches defense, but the appellate court reversed, finding that the mother's unreasonable delay in pursuing the claim, combined with the fathe
• Smith v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  255 So. 3d 916· Fla. 2d DCA· 2018-06-01 ·cited 2×
  Smith validly waived his right to a conditional release violation hearing by initially postponing it and then initialing and signing an amended notice that contained language indicating he was waiving his right to a hearing. The failure to provide a formal waiver document for the