Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Widell, 258 N.W.2d 795.

60 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Justin Kainoa Kaneakua Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Justin Kainoa Kaneakua Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Those factors include: “(1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) whether the defendant asserted his or her right to a speedy trial; and (4) whether the delay prejudiced the defendant.” (adopting the Barker factors in Minnesota).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
(citing Barker, 407 U.S. 514).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972); (using the Barker standard to evaluate a defendant’s right to a speedy trial).
Ronald Lee Schlangen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Id.; (adopting 17 the four-part Barker inquiry for speedy trial demands).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Strobel 921 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Strobel 921 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
*569 State v. Widell , , 796 (Minn. 1977).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Widell , (adopting the four -part test for speedy -trial demands articulated in Barker v. Wingo , 407 U.S. 514, 530 -33, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 2192 -93 (1972) ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530-32, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 2192-93 (1972); (adopting the four-part Barker test for speedy-trial demands).
State v. Osorio 891 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2017
State v. Osorio 891 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Charles Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Charles Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Ernest Osorio 872 N.W.2d 547 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Ernest Osorio 872 N.W.2d 547 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Keith Terrell Bland Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Keith Terrell Bland Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
(citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct.
State of Minnesota v. Saaundre Julian Burns Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Saaundre Julian Burns Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trong Hoang Nguyen Le Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Trong Hoang Nguyen Le Minn. Ct. App. 2014
a defendant for a speedy trial] unless the court finds good cause for a 4 later date.” To determine whether a delay has violated a defendant’s speedy-trial right, a court considers the four-factor test set forth in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 2192 (1972)
Bobo v. State 820 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 2012
Bobo v. State 820 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 2012
(noting that routine booking statements do not require Miranda warnings); (stating that biographical questions do not require Miranda warnings); (explaining that routine booking questions relating to name, address, or other similar matters do not require a Miranda warning).
State v. Rhoads 802 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Rhoads 802 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(adopting the analysis for speedy-trial violations first articulated in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 , 92 S.Ct.
State v. Hahn 799 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Maldonado-Arreaga 772 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Maldonado-Arreaga 772 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In support of its conclusion
State v. Griffin 760 N.W.2d 336 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Griffin 760 N.W.2d 336 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
2182, 2192-93 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972) which adopted the four-part Barker inquiry for speedy-trial demands).
State v. Williams 757 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Williams 757 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
2182, 2192 , 38 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972); (adopting the Barker inquiry).
State v. DeRosier 695 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 2005
State v. DeRosier 695 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 2005
2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972); (adopting Barker inquiry).
State v. Cham 680 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Cham 680 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
(holding that “Miranda warnings need not be given before asking routine booking questions”); (holding that “[biographical questions are not proscribed by Miranda ”).
State v. Windish 590 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1999
State v. Windish 590 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1999
2182 ; (adopting four-part Barker inquiry for speedy trial demands).
State v. Hale 453 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 1990
State v. Hale 453 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 1990
see also Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300-02 , 100 S.Ct.
State v. Murr 443 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Murr 443 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
(“Miranda warnings need not be given before asking routine booking questions”); (“[biographical questions are not proscribed by Miranda ”).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by