Legal Opinion

United States v. Seltzer

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided February 17, 2010No. 08-1469PublishedCited by 36 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HENRY, Chief Judge.

The Supreme Court has called the Sixth Amendment guarantee to a speedy trial both an “amorphous” right and a “fundamental” one. Andy Eugene Seltzer’s case exemplifies the difficult application of this constitutional protection and particularly, the complexities inherent in the balancing of the defining factors delineated by Supreme Court precedent. The district court granted Mr. Seltzer’s motion for dismissal based on a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. Because we agree that, under the circumstances, Mr. Seltzer’s rights were violated, we affirm the district court’s…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Doggett v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. Smith v. HooeySupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  4. Dickey v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  5. United States v. Loud HawkSupreme Court of the United States · 1986

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

3Cited by36 opinions

  1. United States v. LarsonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2010
  2. United States v. GouldCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2012
  3. United States v. BanksCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2014
  4. United States v. MargheimCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2014
  5. United States v. MuhtorovCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2021

31 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