State v. Bailey
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the Court
CHARLES E. ORTH, Jr., Judge,
Specially Assigned.
I
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy ... trial....
U.S. Const. amend. VI. Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 223, 87 S.Ct. 988, 993, 18 L.Ed.2d 1 (1967), established that the right to a speedy trial is “fundamental,” and is “imposed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment on the States.” Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 515, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 2184, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). The right to a speedy trial is to be distinguished “from any of the other rights enshrined in the [United States]…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- United States v. MarionSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- United States v. LovascoSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Klopfer v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Moore v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- John B. Robeson Associates, Inc. v. Gardens of Faith, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1961
- Glover v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
- Marks v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1990
- Divver v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
- Howell v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1991
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.