Cited by

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

152 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. James Pierre Dortch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Pierre Dortch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We balance four factors to determine whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial was violated: “(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, 530-31, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 2191-92)).
State of Minnesota v. Marlow Shelton McDonald Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marlow Shelton McDonald Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Warren Fred Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Warren Fred Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Charles Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Charles Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Rather, they are related factors and must be considered together with such other circumstances as may be relevant.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Carlos Alfredo Rios Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Carlos Alfredo Rios Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(adopting the U.S. Supreme Court’s four-part balancing test for analysis of speedy-trial violations).
State of Minnesota v. Brian James Liimatta Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian James Liimatta Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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
Rather, they are related factors and must be considered together with such other circumstances as may be relevant.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Keith Terrell Bland Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Keith Terrell Bland Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rather, they are related factors and must be considered together with such other circumstances as may be relevant.’” (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 533, 92 S. Ct. at 2193).
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
Under the Barker test, we must 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.” (citing Barker, 407 U.S. at 530-33 , 92 S.Ct.
State of Minnesota v. Roxanne Kay DeFlorin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Roxanne Kay DeFlorin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rather, they are related factors and must be considered together with such other circumstances as may be relevant.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Armando Jesus Pedraza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Armando Jesus Pedraza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. George Howland Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. George Howland Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Trong Hoang Nguyen Le Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Trong Hoang Nguyen Le Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald William Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald William Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Failing to commence trial within 60 days of the demand raised “a presumption that a [speedy-trial-right] violation ha[d] occurred.” (“[D]elays greater than 60 days after a demand for speedy trial has been made are presumptively prejudicial and require further inquiry to determine whether there was good cause for the delay.”).
State of Minnesota v. Ron Wesley Epps Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ron Wesley Epps Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Minnesota courts consider the following factors to determine whether a delay violated this right: “(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, 530-33, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 2191-93).
Chambers v. State 831 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 2013
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
This process requires the entire “criminal justice system, including judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers” to be “responsible for the fair administration of justice.”
State v. Johnson 811 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Johnson 811 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“The Supreme Court assigned the burden of protecting speedy trial rights to the court system and prosecutors.” (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 529 , 92 S.Ct.
State v. Rhoads 802 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Rhoads 802 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(citing Barker, 407 U.S. at 533 , 92 S.Ct.
State v. Hahn 799 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Dobbins v. State 788 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 2010
Dobbins v. State 788 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 2010
(applying the four-part Barker test used to determine whether a defendant has been deprived of his right to a speedy trial).
State v. Griffin 760 N.W.2d 336 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Griffin 760 N.W.2d 336 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
None of the factors alone is dispositive; rather, the factors are related and “must be considered together with such other circumstances as may be relevant.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Williams 757 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Williams 757 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
“The final prong of the Barker test is to determine whether [a defendant] suffered prejudice as a result of the delays.”
State v. Smith 749 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Smith 749 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530-33 , 92 S.Ct.
State v. Cham 680 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Cham 680 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
All criminal defendants have a constitutional right “to a speedy and public trial.” Minn. Const. Art. I, § 6
State v. Pederson 600 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
State v. Pederson 600 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999