United States v. Zedner’s Empirical Analysis
401 F.3d 36 · 2005
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1344 · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 4241 · 18 U.S.C. § 472 · 28 U.S.C. § 2111
Relies on United States v. Booker · Barker v. Wingo · Jones v. United States · United States v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp. · United States v. Janik
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Delay unquestionably can be prejudicial to an accused defendant. It can result in faded or lost memories, or even the death or other unavailability of witnesses. Like wise, in some circumstances, delay can be prejudicial to the public interest protected by the Act. On the other hand, failure to consider the harmlessness of certain errors under the Speedy Trial Act can result in perverse outcomes, including allowing serious crimes to go unpunished, and causing the objective of the Act to expedite the administration of criminal justice to be undermined. A case tried to a satisfactory conclusion a few days later than the Act specifies, without substantial adverse effect on anyone, can require costly retrial a year or more later, after appeal, dismissal of the indictment, and reindictment, in a manner causing vast expense, inefficiency, unfairness, and unjustifiable delay in the administration of criminal justice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.