Detheridge v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) It is the responsibility of the court, counsel and the defendant to insure that the defendant is timely tried. (2) A criminal charge shall be brought to trial within 120 days following arraignment unless continued as provided in this rule. (8) The following periods shall be excluded in computing the time for trial: (A) All proceedings related to the mental illness or deficiency of the defendant; (B) Proceedings on another charge; (C) Delay granted by the court pursuant to paragraph (4) or (5); (D) The time between the dismissal and the refiling of the same charge; and (E) Delay occasioned by defendant's change of counsel or application therefor. (4) Continuances not to exceed six months from the date of arraignment may be granted by the trial court as follows: (A) On motion of defendant supported by affidavit; or (B) On motion of the attorney for the state or the court if; (i) The defendant expressly consents; (ii) The state's evidence is unavailable and the prosecution has exercised due diligence; or (iii) Required in the due administration of justice and the defendant will not be substantially prejudiced; and (C) If a continuance is proposed by the state or the court, the defendant shall be notified. If the defendant objects, the defendant must show in writing how the delay may prejudice the defense. (5) Any request to continue a trial to a date more than six months from the date of arraignment must be directed to the court to which appeals from the trial would be taken”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wilson v. State · Dean v. State

2. “we apply the four-part constitutional test articulated in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 , 92 S.Ct. 2182, 2192 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), * * * to ensure that the defendant's constitutional guarantee to a speedy trial has been satisfied.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wilson v. State · Gilbert Ortiz, Jr. v. The State of Wyoming

3. “[A] delay in sentencing in excess of a calendar year from the date guilt is established, whether by trial to a jury or the court or by plea, is presumptively unreasonable.... "The rule that we espouse protects important rights of the convicted defendant. It serves to prevent the possibility that a greater punishment than is deserved will be imposed because of subsequent conduct that results in a violation of the probation. It also serves to ensure that any vagaries of memory will not interfere with the imposition of a sentence appropriate to the individual and the erime."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Schade v. State