State v. Triplett’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
114 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably State v. Azbell (2006), State v. Mize (2022)
114 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 · Doggett v. United States · United States v. MacDonald
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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial is * * * not primarily intended to prevent prejudice to the defense caused by passage of time; that interest is protected primarily by the Due Process Clause and by statutes of limitations. The speedy trial guarantee is designed to minimize the possibility of lengthy incarceration prior to trial, to reduce the lesser, but nevertheless substantial, impairment of liberty imposed on an accused while released on bail, and to shorten the disruption of life caused by arrest and the presence of unresolved criminal charges.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“The first factor, the length of the delay, is a 'triggering mechanism,' determining the necessity of inquiry into the other factors.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“{¶ 31} [T]he delay in this case [of 54 months], while significant, did not result in any infringement on Triplett's liberty. In fact, according to her own testimony, she was completely ignorant of any charges against her. The interests which the Sixth Amendment was designed to protect-freedom from extended pretrial incarceration and from the disruption caused by unresolved charges-were not issues in this case. Therefore, while the first factor [i.e., the length of the delay] does technically weigh in Triplett's favor, its weight is negligible. Triplett at 569, 679 N.E.2d 290 .”
2 later decisions 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.