Cited by

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

“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.” (quotations omitted).

(explaining that the denial of a speedy tr ial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review); (stating that the standard of review for pretrial release is for an abuse of discretion).

As to the fourth factor, “[t]hree types of prejudice may result from an unreasonable delay between formal accusation and trial: oppressive pretrial incarceration, anxiety and concern of the accused, and the poss ibility that the accused’ s defense will be impaired.” (quotations omitted).

d 620, 627 (Minn. 2017).

Because critical impact is a threshold issue , appellate courts “ will not review a pretrial order absent such a showing.”

“If a defendant has been depriv ed of his or her right to a speedy trial, the only possible remedy is dismissal of the case.” State v. Osorio , (quotation omitted).

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

This court “view[s] critical impact as a threshold issue and will not review a pretrial order absent such a showing.” (quotations omitted).

d 620, 627 (Minn. 2017).

“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial i s a constitutional question subject to de novo review.” State v. Osorio

“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a consti tutional question subject to de novo review.” State v. Osorio

“If a defendant h as been deprived of his or her right to a speedy trial, the only possible remedy is dismissal.” Id.

“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.” d 620, 627 (Minn. 2017).

See State v. Osorio , , 627-28 (Minn. 2017) (setting forth the test for assessing speedy trial claims).

VI; Minn. Const. art. I, § 6 ; d 620, 627 (Minn. 2017); see also Minn. R. Crim.

State v. Osorio , (quotations omitted).

State v. Osorio , , 627 (Minn. 2017).

’” (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 531, 92 S. Ct. at 2192).

" State v. Osorio , , 626-27 (Minn. 2017) (quoting Minn. R. Crim.

“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.” d 620, 627 (Minn. 2017).

4 The state further satisfies the critical-i mpact test, which requires the prosecuting authority to demonstrate “how the district court’s alleged error, unless reversed, will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” State v. Osorio , -27 (Minn. 2017) (quoting Minn. R. Crim.

To determine whether a delay violated a defendant’s right to a speedy trial, courts consider: “(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.” State v. Osorio , (quotation omitted).

(considering the reason for delay before the defendant demanded a speedy trial).

The state further satisfies the critical impact test, which requires the prosecuting authority to demonstrate “how the district court’s alleged error, unless reversed, will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” -27 (Minn. 2017) (quoting Minn. R. Crim.