Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Greenberger v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 22, 1990No. B047792Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

JOHNSON, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I concur in the majority’s conclusion that good cause existed to continue petitioner Karen DeLayne Greenberger’s (petitioner) trial. However, unlike the majority, I would conclude the good cause did not extend to permit the trial court to continue petitioner’s trial for an additional half-year thereby forcing her to remain in custody without the benefit of either bail or a speedy adjudication of the allegations against her for almost two years.

I begin my discussion with an explanation of why I believe good cause existed here. I do so because I believe…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. People v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
  3. United States v. EwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  4. Smith v. HooeySupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  5. Townsend v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API