Chessin v. Robertson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the STA clock under § 3161(e) began running again with the issuance of the mandate
• providing a non-exclusive list of factors to consider when evaluating whether substitution of prosecutors would be an appropriate solution rather than an STA delay
• finding the district court should have considered whether the parties “actually want[ed] and need[ed] a continuance, how long a delay [was] actually required, [and] what adjustments [could have been] made with respect to the trial calendars [to avoid a continuance]”
• finding the district court should have considered whether the parties “actually want[ed] and need[ed] a continuance, how long a delay [was] actually required, [and] what adjustments [could have been] made with respect to the trial calendars [to avoid a continuance]”
• finding the district court should have considered whether the parties “actually want[ed] and need[ed] a continuance, how long a delay [was] actually required, [and] what adjustments [could have been] made with respect to the trial calendars [to avoid a continuance]”
• reversing an exclusion of time when the district court should have considered whether the parties “actually want[ed] and need[ed] a continuance, how long a delay [was] actually required, what adjustments [could have been made] with respect to the trial calendars,” and other factors

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).