State v. Kipp’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 state decisions

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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The District Court suggested that it was important to attribute delay from untimely motions to defendants in order to prevent them from timing motions to create speedy trial problems; however, Kipp’s motions were not untimely and there is nothing before us to indicate they were timed to cause delay. Once the District Court entered its decision, no further activity occurred in the case until the State requested a trial date almost five months later. The State has the burden of diligent prosecution at all stages of a case and, therefore, had the burden to ensure that a new trial date was set in this case. From the date of the District Court’s April 18, 1997, order until the November 19, 1997, change of plea hearing date, Kipp filed no motions, asked for no continuances, and did nothing to contribute to further delay. Therefore, the delay from April 18,1997, until the November 19,1997, change of plea hearing is institutional delay attributable to the State.... Based on our holding that 433 days of delay are attributable to the State, we conclude the burden shifted to the State to prove that Kipp was not prejudiced by the delay.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Lewis

2. “In Barker v. Wingo. (1972), 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S. Ct. 2182 , 33 L. Ed. 2d 101 , the United States Supreme Court established four factors which must be considered in any review of a claim that a speedy trial was denied: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion of his right; and (4) the prejudice to the defendant. See Barker, 407 U.S. at 530 , 92 S.Ct at 2192 , 33 L. Ed. 2d at 117 . Prejudice to the defendant can be established based on any of the following: (1) pretrial incarceration; (2) anxiety and concern to the defendant; or (3) impairment of the defense. See Barker, 407 U.S. at 532 , 92 S. Ct. at 2193 , 33 L. Ed. 2d at 118 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Ellenburg

3. “When a defendant files an `eve of trial' motion, which raises a complex legal issue or requires an evidentiary hearing which thereby makes the original trial date impracticable, the reasonable period of delay caused thereby is attributable to the defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Ariegwe