Salandre v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
120 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 120 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably State v. Rojo (1998), State v. Coffin (1999)
120 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Barker v. Wingo · United States v. Marion · United States v. Gouveia · United States v. MacDonald · United States v. Loud Hawk
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[p]resumptively prejudicial delay” refers to prejudice to the fundamental right to a speedy trial, not to specific prejudice covered by the fourth [Barker ] element, much less simply to impairment of the defense at trial.... [0]nee the defendant demonstrates existence of presumptively prejudicial delay, “the burden of persuasion rests with the [Sjtate to demonstrate that, on balance, the defendant’s speedy trial right was not violated.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Gallegos · State v. Plouse“We are of the opinion that nine months marks the minimum length of time that may be considered presumptively prejudicial, even for a case such as this involving simple charges and readily-available evidence____ We believe that for complex cases a period of fifteen months after the defendant becomes an ‘accused’ should provide adequate time for the state to marshall its resources and proceed to trial. Accordingly, we believe trial courts should treat delay of fifteen or more months in such ’ cases as requiring further inquiry. Twelve months for cases of intermediate complexity would be appropriate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Manzanares“The Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial is ... not primarily intended to prevent prejudice to the defense caused by passage of time; that interest is protected primarily by the Due Process Clause and by statutes of limitations. The speedy trial guarantee is designed to minimize the possibility of lengthy incarceration prior to trial, to reduce the lesser, but nevertheless substantial, impairment of liberty imposed on an accused while released on bail, and to shorten the disruption of life caused by arrest and the presence of unresolved criminal charges.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Marquez
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.