4 Ohio App. 3d 305 - State v. Turner’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably 13 Ohio App. 3d 27 - State v. Geraldo (1983), State v. Hull (2006)
26 state decisions
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 Barker v. Wingo · 43 Ohio App. 493 - Shafer v. State · 60 Ohio App. 2d 204 - State v. Workman · 14 Ohio App. 2d 20 - State v. Rice
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * the prosecuting attorney and the appropriate court in which the matter is pending.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““In reviewing defendant’s claim that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial, we shall first look at the issue as explained by the United State Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo (1972), 407 U.S. 514 . The court adopted a balancing test in determining whether the defendant received a speedy trial. It enumerated four criteria which should be considered: length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant. “In the instant case, eleven and one half months elapsed between the time the defendant’s first convictions were reversed and remanded and the time his second trial was to commence. Although this exceeds the more restrictive time frame provided for in R.C. 2945.71, it is not necessarily such a long delay as to violate the speedy trial provisions of the United States or Ohio Constitutions. Barker v. Wingo, supra (five-year delay); State v. Rice (1968), 14 Ohio App. 2d 20 [43 O.O. 2d 56] (fourteen-month delay); and Shafer v. State (1932), 43 Ohio App. 493 (eighteen-month delay). Thus * * * we must look at the other criteria to ascertain whether * * * [defendant’s] constitutional right was violated.””
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.