Cited by

Appellate courts “must engage in a difficult and sensitive balancing process, in which the conduct of both the State and the defendant are weighed.” (quotations and citation omitted).

But the guiding determination in assessing the reason-for-the-delay (second) factor is whether the state or the defendant is more to blame for the delay, and here, the defendant bears the blame.

Appellate courts “view critical impact as a threshold issue and will 5 not review a pretrial order absent such a showing.” (quotation omitted).

“The defendant’s assertion of his speedy trial right is entitled to strong evidentiary weight in determining whether the defendant is being deprived of the right.” (quotation omitted).

“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”

Critical impact is a threshold issue, and absent such a showing, we must dismiss a state’s pretrial appeal.

“We review critical impact as a threshold issue and will not review a pretrial order absent such a showing.” d 620, 627 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).

“We view critical impact as a threshold issue and will not review a pretrial order absent such a showing.” (quotation omitted); see also Minn. R. Crim.

“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”

decision at the pretrial stage, we will reverse its decision only if the state can “clearly and unequivocally show both that the trial court’s order [had] a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the [district court’s decision] constituted error.” (quotation omitted); d 620, 627 (Minn. 2017) (explaining that an appellate court views critical impact as a threshold issue and will not review a pretrial order absent such a showing).

“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”

“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”

“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”

“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”

“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”

“Whether a 3 defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”

Furthermore, “the prejudice a defendant suffers must be due to the delay.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Whether the right to a speedy trial is violated “is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”

“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”

“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”

“We view critical impact as a threshold issue and will not review a pretrial order absent such a showing.” (quotation omitted).

Right to a Speedy Trial “Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review .”

d 620, 627 (Minn. 2017).

“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.” 1 In determining whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial has been violated, Minnesota courts apply the four-factor balancing test set forth in Barker v. Wingo.