Legal Opinion

State v. Mines

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Decided March 3, 1981No. 949, September Term, 1980PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOrth, J.

It once was that a delay in bringing an accused to trial was governed solely by the guarantees of a speedy trial set out in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. A delay of constitutional dimension triggered the "difficult and sensitive balancing process” of Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S. Ct. 2182 (1972), and when that test showed that the constitutional guarantees were offended, the appropriate sanction was the dismissal of the charges. See Jones v. State, 279 Md. 1, 367 A.2d 1 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S.…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. North Carolina v. AlfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. State v. HicksCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1979
  5. Johnson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1978

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Icgoren v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1995
  2. State v. FarinholtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1983
  3. Coleman v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1981
  4. Donalds v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1981
  5. Carter v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1983

2 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