Ben v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 state decisions

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

1. “Closely related to [the] length of delay is the reason the government assigns to justify the delay. Here, too,. different weights should be assigned to different reasons. A deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense should be weighted heavily against the government. A more neutral reason shch as negligence Or overcrowded courts should be weighted less heavily but nevertheless should be considered since the ultimate responsibility for such circumstances must rest with the government rather than-with the defendant.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tommy Ames v. State of Mississippi · Hardy v. State

2. “If during the course of trial, the prosecution attempts to introduce evidence which has not been timely disclosed to the defense as required by these rules, and the defense objects to the introduction for that reason, the court shall act as follows: 1. Grant the defense a reasonable opportunity to interview the newly discovered witness, to examine the newly produced documents, photographs or other evidence; and 2. If, after such opportunity, the defense claims unfair surprise or undue prejudice and seeks a continuance or mistrial, the court shall, in the interest of justice and absent unusual circumstances, exclude the evidence or grant a continuance for a period of time reasonably necessary for the defense to meet the non-disclosed evidence or grant a mistrial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Magee v. State

3. “iv. Prejudice to Hardy ¶ 35. We have held: Prejudice must be assessed in light of the interests that are designed to be protected under the right to a speedy trial. Barker identifies three such interests: “(i) to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused; and (iii) to limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired.” The last is the most serious. Possible impairment to one’s defense includes the unavailability of witnesses or witnesses’ loss of memory.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Hardy v. State