United States v. Maxwell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate ·

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

1. “). The court first held that Maxwell's STA clock began running on January 5, 2002, the day after her arraignment. See id. at 12. Second, the court found excludable the period between January 5 and March 7, 2002 because her co-defendant DeAson was not arraigned until March 6, 2002. See id. at 12. Third, the court found that Maxwell's motion to sever resulted in excludable delay from March 5 through November 1, 2002, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F) as”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Maxwell

2. “No single factor or combination of factors outlined in Barker definitively establishes that Maxwell's constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated. Nor do we find any other relevant circumstances that militate in favor of Maxwell. Hence, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting her motion to dismiss on Sixth Amendment grounds. 36 C.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Maxwell

3. “The assertion of a defendant's speedy trial rights should not be a game in which the defendant attempts to engineer a basis to argue that the STA or the Sixth Amendment has been violated.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Maxwell