Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Windish, 590 N.W.2d 311.

156 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Abraham Isaac Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Those four factors are “(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.” (citing Barker, 407 U.S. at 530).
Clayton Douglas Groves v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Matthew James Preston Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Elson Randall Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Windish, 13 (citing Barker, 407 U.S. at 530-33).
State of Minnesota v. Donald Anthony Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(citing Barker, 407 U.S. at 530).
A20-0206 A20-0228 A20-0229 Minn. 2021
We may invoke our supervisory powers to ensure the fair administration of justice, but do so only in rare cases See
Ronald Lee Schlangen v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Speedy Trial Violation The right to a speedy trial is as “fundamental as any of the rights secured by the Sixth Amendment.” State v. Windish , (quoting Klopfer v. North Carolina , 386 U.S. 213, 223, 87 S. Ct .
State of Minnesota v. Edward Earl Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Pedro Ray Tejeda Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(citing Barker v. Wingo , 407 U.S. 514, 530-33, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 2192-93 (1972)).
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Freeland Jami Morrow, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Windish , -16 (Minn. 1999).
Deiven Jacques Branch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Adam Robert Hageman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Griffin, d at 340 (-16 (Minn. 1999)).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel John Wyatt Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Mikell Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Bernard Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Lee Riddle Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Taylor , State v. Windish
State of Minnesota v. Hassan Farth Muse Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Vernon Kingbird, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Gary Burnette, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Windish , 5 (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530-33, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 2192-93 (1972)).
State of Minnesota v. Anton Jermaine Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Davonne Ramsey Minn. Ct. App. 2019
These factors are: “(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.” (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 2192 (1972)) .
State of Minnesota v. Ernest Alvin Ranzy Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Minnesota 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 spee dy trial; and (4) whether the delay prejudiced the defendant.”
State of Minnesota v. Kaylen Demond Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
These factors are: “(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 of Minnesota v. Dean Allen Benter Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Normally, the unavailability of a witness constitutes good cause for delay.”
State of Minnesota v. La’Marr Merrel Wade Minn. Ct. App. 2019
This factor is a “triggering mechanism which determines whether further review is necessary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Deangelo Jefferson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The four factors are “(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.” (citing Barker, 407 U.S. at 530-33, 92 S. Ct. at 2192- 93).
State of Minnesota v. Dameion Deshawn Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Strobel 921 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Strobel 921 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Windish , , 315 (Minn. 1999) (citing Barker , 407 U.S. at 530-33, 92 S.Ct.
State of Minnesota v. Seekou Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Hisham Ismaeil Rawi Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“In Minnesota, delays beyond 60 days from the date of demand raise a presumption that a violation [of the right to a speedy trial] has occurred.” -16 (Minn. 1999); see also Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Keith Lamar Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Rather, they are related factors and must be considered together with such other circumstances as may be relevant.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. William Lee Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We use a four-factor balanc ing test to determine whether a delay in a case violated the speedy-trial right and consider “(1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) whether the defendant assert ed his or her right to a speedy trial; and (4) whether the delay prejudiced the defendant.” State v. Windish , (citing Barker v. Wingo , 407 U.S. 514, 92 S. Ct. 2182 (1972)).
State of Minnesota v. Kurt Lee Villa Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Richard Greene Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Said Yusuf Mumin Minn. Ct. App. 2018
I. Length of Delay “The length of the delay is a ‘triggeri ng mechanism’ which determines whether further review is necessary.” (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 530, 92 S. Ct. at 2192).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Lee Conway Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Rather, they are related factors and must be considered together with such other circumstances as may be relevant.” (quotation omitted).
Antonio Xavier Daniels v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. James Franklin Patten Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A. Length of the delay “The length of the delay is a ‘triggering mechanism’ which determines whether further review is necessary.” State v. Windish
State of Minnesota v. Gideon Wesseh Chea Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Length of delay “The length of the delay is a ‛triggering mechanism’ which determines whether further review [of the Barker factors] is necessary.” State v. Windish
State of Minnesota v. Robert Earl Leatherberry Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A. Length of the delay “The length of the delay is a ‘triggering mechanism’ which determines whether further review is necessary.” (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 530, 92 S. Ct. at 2192) .
State of Minnesota v. DeSean Lamont Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530–32, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 2192–93 (1972)).
State v. Osorio 891 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2017
State v. Osorio 891 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Yachin Kadimel Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Yachin Kadimel Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
right to a speedy trial; and (4) whether the delay prejudiced the defendant.” (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530-33, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 2192-93 (1972)).
State of Minnesota v. Quentin Todd Chute 887 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Quentin Todd Chute 887 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
that could be construed as the assertion of the speedy trial right.” d 311, 317 (Minn. 1999) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jeremiah James Shefelbine Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeremiah James Shefelbine Minn. Ct. App. 2016