Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 262 Ga. 876 - Wooten v. State

Wooten v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
October 2023
most recently cited

37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2023 · most notably State v. White (2008), Bunn v. State (2008)

37 state decisions

1701993200020102020decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Barker v. Wingo · United States v. Marion · United States v. Lovasco · United States v. MacDonald

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

  1. “[A] n inordinate delay between the time a crime is committed and the time a defendant is arrested or indicted may violate due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. [Cit.] To find a due process violation where a delay precedes arrest and indictment, courts must find 1) that the delay caused actual prejudice to the defense, and 2) that the delay was the product of deliberate action by the prosecution designed to gain a tactical advantage. [Cits.]”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he offense in this case is murder, for which there is no applicable statute of limitation. Hence, any prejudice which results merely from the passage of time cannot create the requisite prejudice. The possibilities that memories will dim, witnesses become inaccessible, and evidence be lost are inherent in any extended delay, and, these possibilities are not in themselves enough to demonstrate that [the defendant] cannot receive a fair trial.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “may violate the right to a speedy trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. [Cits.] In determining whether the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial has been violated, courts consider 1) the length of the delay, 2) the reason for the delay, 3) the defendant’s assertion of the right to a speedy trial, and 4) whether the defendant was prejudiced by the delay. [Cits.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.