Citation network
Doggett Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 24, 1992
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Doggett v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 505 U.S. 647 (1992) October Term, 1991 Syllabus Doggett V. UnitedSearch
-
The delay between Doggett's indictment and arrest violated his right to a speedy trial. His claim meets the Barker v. WingoSearch
-
that the Speedy Trial Clause does not significantly protect a defendant's interest in fair adjudication. United States v. MarionSearch
-
United States v. LoudSearch
-
The Federal Magistrate hearing his motion applied the criteria for assessing speedy trial claims set out in Barker v. WingoSearch
-
of the Court of Appeals affirmed. 906 F.2d 573 (CAll 1990). Following Circuit precedent, see Ring staff v. HowardSearch
-
however, and we review trial court determinations of negligence with considerable deference. See Cooter & Gell v. HartmarxSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
McAllister v. UnitedSearch
-
see also Smith v. HooeySearch
-
charges against him. The Government answers Doggett's claim by citing language in three cases, United States v. MarionSearch
-
U. S. 307 , 320-323 (1971), United States v. MacDonaldSearch
-
U. S. 1 , 8 (1982), and United States v. LoudSearch
-
on the accused's defense just as it has to weigh any other form of prejudice that Barker recognized.2 See Moore v. ArizonaSearch
-
a matter for consideration under the Due Process Clause. We leave intact our earlier observation, see United States v. MacDonaldSearch
-
prejudice grows. Thus, our toleration of such negligence varies inversely with its protractedness, cf. Arizona v. YoungbloodSearch
-
O'CONNOR, dissenting. I believe the Court of Appeals properly balanced the considerations set forth in Barker v. WingoSearch
-
any anxiety or restriction on his liberty. The only harm to petitioner from the lapse 3 Citing United States v. BroceSearch
-
required a showing of actual prejudice to the defense before weighing it in the balance. As we stated in United States v. LoudSearch
-
as an independent and fundamental objective of the Speedy Trial 662 Clause. In particular, in Barker v. WingoSearch
-
Dillingham v. UnitedSearch
-
whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.''' United States v. GouveiaSearch
-
U. S. 180 , 188 (1984) (quoting Kirby v. IllinoisSearch
-
not when the indictment is filed, but when it is unsealed. See, e. g., United States v. WatsonSearch
-
F.2d 1149 , 1156-1157, and n. 5 (CA2 1979), modified on other grounds sub nom. United States v. MuseSearch
-
United States v. HaySearch
-
cf. United States v. LewisSearch
-
U. S., at 322 (quoting Public Schools v. WalkerSearch
-
Because such statutes are fixed by the legislature and not decreed by 3 Our summary reversal in Moore v. ArizonaSearch
-
We rejected that reasoning, emphasizing the contextual nature of the speedy trial analysis set forth in Barker v. WingoSearch
-
defendants against fundamentally unfair treatment by the government in criminal proceedings. See United States v. LovascoSearch
-
recourse for an accused whose defense is materially prejudiced by bad-faith governmental behavior. See United States v. LovascoSearch
-
cf. Arizona v. YoungbloodSearch
-
for much the same reasons that we sometimes consider an argument that a litigant has waived. See, e. g., Arcadia v. OhioSearch
-
Kamen v. KemperSearch
-
balance his interest in repose against society's interest in the apprehension and punishment of criminals. Cf. Toussie v. UnitedSearch
-
Syllabus Doggett V. UnitedSearch
-
the Barker v. WingoSearch
-
See Cooter & Gell v. HartmarxSearch
-
Smith v. HooeySearch
-
and United States v. LoudSearch
-
See Moore v. ArizonaSearch
-
Arizona v. YoungbloodSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial