Murray v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
February 2014
most recently cited
12 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Barker v. Wingo · Klopfer v. State of North Carolina · McClain v. State · 691 So. 2d 948 - Herring v. State · 550 So. 2d 406 - Smith v. State
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.
“[(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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“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 such 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. Finally, a valid reason, such as a missing witness, should serve to justify appropriate delay.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Franklin v. State“[F]ailure to assert the right will make it difficult for a defendant to prove that he was denied a speedy trial.”
1 later decision 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.