Citation network
Reed Vs. Farley
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 28, 1994
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
-
U.S. 339 (1994) October Term, 1993 Syllabus Reed V. FarleySearch
-
showing of prejudice, he cannot tenably maintain that his Sixth Amendment speedy trial right was violated. See Barker v. WingoSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
standard set forth in Hill v. UnitedSearch
-
and 2255 mirror each other in operative effect, see Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
when a federal statute, but not the Constitution, is the basis for the postconviction attack. See, e. g., Stone v. PowellSearch
-
test of Hill v. UnitedSearch
-
Carchman v. NashSearch
-
offender conviction, the terms to run consecutively. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. Reed v. StateSearch
-
delay chargeable to Reed, the court held, was excludable from the 120-day period. Reed v. ClarkSearch
-
S 90-226 (ND Ind., Sept. 21, 1990), App. 195-196. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Reed v. ClarkSearch
-
s lAD speedy trial arguments and remedial contentions had been considered and rejected by the Indiana courts. Stone v. PowellSearch
-
days of the prosecuting State's receipt of the prisoner's notice requesting speedy disposition of the charges. Fex v. MichiganSearch
-
under Hill v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 368 U. S. 424 , 428 (1962). See, e. g., Reilly v. WardenSearch
-
Fasano v. HallSearch
-
for failure to meet lAD speedy trial specifications unless the petitioner shows actual prejudice. See, e. g., Seymore v. AlabamaSearch
-
See, e. g., Birdwell v. SkeenSearch
-
Cody v. MorrisSearch
-
While the lAD is indeed state law, it is a law of the United States as well. See Carchman v. NashSearch
-
of Appeals recognized that the lAD is both a law of Indiana and a federal statute. 984 F. 2d, at 210. Adopting Stone v. PowellSearch
-
Esola v. GroomesSearch
-
prisoner's claim that his conviction rests on statements obtained in violation of the safeguards set out in Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Hill v. UnitedSearch
-
accord, United States v. TimmreckSearch
-
Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
at 214 (Ripple, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing in bane). Therefore, the argument that 7See also Kimmelman v. MorrisonSearch
-
Jackson v. VirginiaSearch
-
review, is not without force. Cf. Stone v. PowellSearch
-
Ibid. Hill controlled our decision in United States v. TimmreckSearch
-
Hill, 368 U. S., at 428, quoting Bowen v. JohnstonSearch
-
of his litigation conduct, even if true, as irrelevant. He maintains 9 In contrast, the defendant in United States v. FordSearch
-
F.2d 732 (CA2 1977), aff'd sub nom. United States v. MauroSearch
-
of the Sixth Amendment Speedy Trial Clause, and that necessary ingredient is entirely missing here. See Barker v. WingoSearch
-
Constitution, is the basis for the postconviction attack. For example, in Stone v. PowellSearch
-
run without alerting the trial court, yet deny collateral review to a federal prisoner similarly situated. See Francis v. HendersonSearch
-
in finality is the same with regard to both federal and state prisoners .... There is no 13 See also United States v. AddonizioSearch
-
a lack of jurisdiction or constitutional error, the scope of collateral attack has remained far more limited. Stone v. PowellSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial