Lillibridge v. Swenson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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. ““[4] * * * ‘There can be no doubt that if the petitioner * * * had repeatedly demanded that he be brought to trial, the State would have been under a constitutional duty to try him.’ Smith v. Hooey, supra, 393 U.S. 374, 377 , 89 S.Ct. 575, 576 , 21 L.Ed.2d 607, 611 . It is said in the same case that: “‘[A]t least three basic demands of criminal justice [are sought to be furthered by the concept of speedy trial] * * * “[1] to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration prior to trial, [2] to minimize anxiety and concern accompanying public accusation and [3] to limit the possibilities that long delay will impair the ability of an accused to defend himself.” ’ Id., 393 U.S. at 378 , 89 S.Ct. at 577, 611 , quoting from United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116, 120 , 86 S.Ct. 773 , 15 L.Ed.2d 627 . “It was further established in United States v. Ewell, supra, that the time of delay alone is not in itself determinative of whether a petitioner has received a speedy trial. In that case it was stated: “ We cannot agree that the passage of 19 months between the original arrests and the hearings on the later indictments itself demonstrates a violation of the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a speedy trial. This guarantee is an important safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration prior to trial, to minimize anxiety and concern accompanying public accusation and to limit the possibilities that long delay will impair the ability of an accused to defend himself. However, in large mea”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Endres