26 Cited authorities

Barker v. Wingo
407 U.S. 514 (1972) Cited 11,598 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendant who fails to demand speedy trial does not forever waive that constitutional right
Chambers v. Mississippi
410 U.S. 284 (1973) Cited 5,979 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that the application of the rule against hearsay to exclude exculpatory testimony violated the defendant's right to present a complete defense because the testimony was reliable
Smith v. Hooey
393 U.S. 374 (1969) Cited 1,008 times
Holding that the defendant's confinement in federal prison does not absolve the state "from any duty at all under the [ Sixth Amendment] constitutional guarantee"
People v. Taranovich
37 N.Y.2d 442 (N.Y. 1975) Cited 990 times
In People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442 (1975), the New York Court of Appeals adopted a substantially similar balancing test, using the following factors: "(1) the extent of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the nature of the underlying charge; (4) whether or not there has been an extended period of pretrial incarceration; and (5) whether or not there is any indication that the defense has been impaired by reason of the delay."
People v. Martinez
71 N.Y.2d 937 (N.Y. 1988) Cited 372 times
Authorizing appropriate sanctions for the failure to preserve witness statements
United States v. Bryant
439 F.2d 642 (D.C. Cir. 1971) Cited 417 times
Holding the duty of disclosure under the Jencks Act "affects not only the prosecutor, but the Government as a whole, including its investigative agencies."
People v. Singer
44 N.Y.2d 241 (N.Y. 1978) Cited 328 times
Providing a defendant with a pre-trial hearing to determine whether a pre-indictment delay was reasonable
People v. Decker
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 4695 (N.Y. 2009) Cited 128 times
Finding 15-year pre-charge delay not excessive
People v. Romeo
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 1017 (N.Y. 2009) Cited 101 times
Concluding the fourth factor was "not significant in this case" involving postindictment delay because "(a)t no point during his prosecution on the Suffolk County charges has he faced additional incarceration from those charges"
People v. Staley
41 N.Y.2d 789 (N.Y. 1977) Cited 150 times
In People v. Staley, we held that a "wholly unexplained 31–month delay" was an "extraordinary time-lapse" that "would, without question, be cause for dismissal of the indictment" even without any showing of prejudice (see 41 N.Y.2d at 790–793, 396 N.Y.S.2d 339, 364 N.E.2d 1111).

The People, Respondent,v.Clinton Johnson, Appellant.

26 Cited authorities

Holding that defendant who fails to demand speedy trial does not forever waive that constitutional right

Holding that the application of the rule against hearsay to exclude exculpatory testimony violated the defendant's right to present a complete defense because the testimony was reliable

Holding that the defendant's confinement in federal prison does not absolve the state "from any duty at all under the [ Sixth Amendment] constitutional guarantee"

Authorizing appropriate sanctions for the failure to preserve witness statements

Holding the duty of disclosure under the Jencks Act "affects not only the prosecutor, but the Government as a whole, including its investigative agencies."

Providing a defendant with a pre-trial hearing to determine whether a pre-indictment delay was reasonable

Finding 15-year pre-charge delay not excessive

Concluding the fourth factor was "not significant in this case" involving postindictment delay because "(a)t no point during his prosecution on the Suffolk County charges has he faced additional incarceration from those charges"

In People v. Staley, we held that a "wholly unexplained 31–month delay" was an "extraordinary time-lapse" that "would, without question, be cause for dismissal of the indictment" even without any showing of prejudice (see 41 N.Y.2d at 790–793, 396 N.Y.S.2d 339, 364 N.E.2d 1111).