204 Md. App. 509 - Henry v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Unintentional delays caused by overcrowded court dockets or understaffed prosecutors are among the factors to be weighed less heavily than intentional delay, calculated to hamper the defense, in determining whether the Sixth Amendment has been violated but, as we noted in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 531 [ 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 ] (1972), they must nevertheless ... be considered since the ultimate responsibility for such circumstances must rest with the government rather than with the defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 224 Md. App. 306 - Peters v. State

2. “(i) to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused; and (iii) to limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired. Of these, the most serious is the last, because the inability of a defendant adequately to prepare his case skews the fairness of the entire system.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 224 Md. App. 306 - Peters v. State