¶1(concurring) I concur in the result because (1) delaying action upon these indictments seems likely to be prejudicial to the defendant, and (2) no unreasonable burden will be imposed upon the Commonwealth by requiring the district attorney promptly either to try or to dismiss the indictments. I assume it to be implicit in the de-*754cisión that circumstances might exist in which it would be proper to allow the Commonwealth to delay trial until a Federal prisoner’s release. By such delay the Commonwealth, of course, would run the risk that the indictments would be dismissed then because of failure to afford a speedy trial.
348 Mass. 748
205 N.E.2d 710
Commonwealth v. McGrath
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided April 5, 1965
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1965-04-05
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1965-04-05
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently July 2011 · most notably 64 Cal. 2d 806 - Barker v. Municipal Court of the Salinas Judicial District of Monterey County (1966), Commonwealth v. Gove (1974)
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 35 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →