Legal Opinion

State v. Gee

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided February 23, 1984No. 81, September Term, 1983PublishedCited by 57 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CHARLES E. ORTH, Jr., Retired, Specially Assigned Judge.

I

(1] The guidelines for the application of the “amorphous” and “slippery” right to a speedy trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution are loud and clear. 1 .In several cases beginning with United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 92 S.Ct. 455, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971) the Supreme Court of the United States has declared that “the Sixth Amendment speedy trial provision has no application until the putative defendant in some way becomes an ‘accused’.... On its face, the protection of the Amendment is activated…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. United States v. MarionSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. Kirby v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  4. United States v. LovascoSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  5. Klopfer v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967

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

3Cited by57 opinions

  1. Riddick v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1990
  2. Oken v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1992
  3. State v. UtleyTennessee Supreme Court · 1997
  4. People v. MartinezCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Jones v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1996

52 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