Commonwealth v. McCants
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the CourtKass, J.
Once again we grapple with application of Mass.R.Crim.P. 36, 378 Mass. 909 (1979). See Commonwealth v. Moore, ante 1. The rule bears the title “Case Management” and is commonly referred to as the “speedy trial rule. ”
In the instant case, the problem involves delays sought or agreed to by defense counsel, but not expressly authorized by the defendant. Should such delays be excluded in calculating the time limit for bringing an accused to trial under the rule? If the answer is “yes,” the indictments 1 against the defendant, McCants, were wrongly dismissed. We think those delays are excludable…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- People v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
- Barry v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
- State v. ZuckArizona Supreme Court · 1982
- Commonwealth v. LookMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Commonwealth v. AmiraultMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997
- Commonwealth v. RodgersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2007
- Commonwealth v. VasquezMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2002
- Commonwealth v. WysockiMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1989
- FOMMONWEALTH v. McDonaldMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1986
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.