Warner v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Lancaster v. State (2002), Byron Nelson Griggs v. State (2016)
32 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 · Kotteakos v. United States · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Doggett v. United States · Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros.
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“inquiry is whether the delay in bringing the accused to trial was unreasonable, that is, whether it substantially impaired the right of the accused to a fair trial.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Sixth Amendment guarantees that the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial In deciding whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial, courts must balance 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. Warner [v. State, 2001 WY 67 ,] ¶ 10, [ 28 P.3d 21, 26 (Wyo.2001) 1, Campbell v. State, 999 P.2d 649, 655 (Wyo.2000); Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 533 , 92 S.Ct. 2182, 2192 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). None of these factors alone is sufficient to establish a speedy trial violation, "[rlather they are related factors and must be considered together with such other cireum-stances as may be relevant." Barker, 407 U.S. at 533 , 92 S.Ct. at 2193 . "The determinative dynamic in our inquiry is whether the delay in bringing the accused to trial was unreasonable, that is, whether it substantially impaired the right of the accused to a fair trial." Warner, ¶ 10, Wehr v. State, 841 P.2d 104, 112 (Wyo.1992). When a speedy trial violation is found to have occurred, the charges must be dismissed. Warner, ¶ 10; Barker, 407 U.S. at 522 , 92 S.Ct. at 2188 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Whitney v. State · Boucher v. State“Among the factors to be considered are the nature and gravity of the error, the prosecutor's duty to do justice and refrain from improper methods, the likely impact on the average juror, the quality of the prosecution's case, and the closeness of the case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Burton v. State · Drury v. State
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.