Legal Opinion

Durham v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided May 14, 2018No. A18A0098PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

the court to consider three interests: (i) preventing oppressive pretrial incarceration, (ii) minimizing anxiety and concern of the defendant, and (iii) limiting the possibility that the defense will be impaired.

Higgenbottom , supra at 430, 704 S.E.2d 786 (citation and punctuation omitted).

None of the factors are "either a necessary or sufficient condition to the finding of a deprivation of the right of speedy trial. Rather, they are related factors and must be considered together with such other circumstances as may be relevant. In sum, these factors have no talismanic qualities;

*815courts must…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Higgenbottom v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 2011
  3. Richardson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2011
  4. Butler v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2011
  5. Butler v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2011

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Durham v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2019
  2. Gary Durham v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API