United States v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “[t]wo provisions of the United States Constitution guard criminal defendants against unreasonable pre-trial delay. First, the Sixth Amendment provides a right to a speedy trial in all criminal prosecutions, a protection that attaches to the earlier of arrest or indictment. Sixth Amendment speedy trial issues are analyzed using the four-factor balancing test established in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). This test requires the court to consider the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the de fendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant. Second, while statutes of limitations provide the primary guarantee against delay prior to indictment or arrest, the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment does play a limited role in protecting against oppressive delay.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Elmardoudi

2. “[Defendants claiming a due process violation for pre-indictment delay must carry the burden of proof on two separate elements. The defendant must establish that: (1) the delay resulted in actual and substantial prejudice to the presentation of his defense; and (2) the government intentionally delayed his indictment either to gain a tactical advantage or to harass him. [Sturdy, 207 F.3d at 452 ]; see also United States v. Grap, 368 F.3d 824, 829 (8th Cir.2004); Sprouts, 282 F.3d at 1041 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 464 F. Supp. 2d 847 - United States v. Sheridan

3. “Our holding should not be construed as our approval of the government’s handling of this case. Nor should it in any way be construed .as encouraging the government to “gamble with the interests of criminal suspects assigned a low prosecutorial priority.” The government here failed the public’s interest in the timely prosecution of a serious criminal offense, one that Congress created to protect children from on-line sexual predators.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 488 F. Supp. 2d 866 - United States v. Jackson