Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A violation of the Speedy Trial Clause is cause for dismissal with prejudice of a criminal case. Within these parameters, it was determined that the five-year wait for this case to go trial was not in violation of the Constitution. In 1974, Congress passed the Speedy Trial Act to help protect and clarify defendants' speedy trial rights. [2] [3]
"A New Speedy Trial Standard for Barker v Wingo: Reviving a Constitutional Remedy in an Age of Statutes". University of Chicago Law Review. 61 (2): 587– 611. doi:10.2307/1600046. JSTOR 1600046. Rudstein, David Stewart (1975). "The Right to a Speedy Trial: Barker v. Wingo in the Lower Courts". University of Illinois Law Forum. 1975 (1): 11– 58.
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas: 20-493: 2022-6-15 The federal legislation at issue—the Ysleta del Sur and Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act, 101 Stat. 666—bans as a matter of federal law on tribal lands only those gaming activities also banned in Texas. American Hospital Association v. Becerra: 20-1114: 2022-6-15
Feb. 1—LIMA — A jury trial has been rescheduled for May 7 for a teenager charged with the 2022 murder of Lima resident Kobe Bryant. Takal Austin, 19, made a brief appearance earlier this week ...
The court documents stated that Baldwin, 65, hopes to “minimize public vilification and suspicion” with a quicker trial and to “a Alec Baldwin Requests ‘Speedy Trial’ After New 'Rust ...
A trial on the states’ lawsuit is being presided over by U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton in Victoria, Texas. Tipton, a Donald Trump appointee, has previously ruled against the Biden ...
She issued a new pretrial schedule, under which defendants' motions to dismiss will be heard May 22 and June 21, there is a CIPA deadline on June 17 (delayed from May 9), [118] defendants’ combined speedy trial report will be due July 19, and a status conference and a CIPA hearing will be held on July 22. [119]
Certain pretrial delays are automatically excluded from the Act's time limits, such as delays caused by pretrial motions. [9] In Henderson v.United States, 476 U.S. 321, 330 (1986), the Supreme Court held that § 3161 excludes "all time between the filing of a motion and the conclusion of the hearing on that motion, whether or not a delay in holding that hearing is 'reasonably necessary.'"