48 Wash. App. 83 - State v. Newcomer’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably State v. Powell (1990), 121 Wash. 2d 852 - State v. Anderson (1993)
33 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 Strickland v. Washington · Barker v. Wingo · United States v. Marion · Ake v. Oklahoma · Smith v. Hooey
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a person is incarcerated in another jurisdiction, the possibility a long delay in going to trial will impair his ability to defend himself is markedly increased. For this reason, the Supreme Court has required that states make a diligent good faith effort to bring the defendant back for trial. Dickey v. Florida, 398 U.S. 30 , 26 L. Ed. 2d 26 , 90 S. Ct. 1564 (1970); Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374 , 21 L. Ed. 2d 607 , 89 S. Ct. 575 (1969). States usually accomplish this through adoption and utilization of the interstate detainer compacts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the State must make a diligent, good faith effort to bring defendants to this state for trial when incarcerated in another jurisdiction, and although the State could have returned Mr. Newcomer to this state using IAD article 4 procedures, the prosecution cannot be penalized where Mr. Newcomer's own request prompted the State's inaction, and no prejudice resulted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Anderson“This issue involves the relationship of federal and state constitutional rights to a speedy trial with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), RCW 9.100.010 et seq. It does not involve compliance with CrR 3.3 because CrR 3.3(g)(6) excludes the time during which a defendant is detained in jail or prison outside Washington.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Anderson
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.