Cohen v. Knox

How courts have described this case

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

• assuming that 18-year delay between filing of motion for new trial and ruling on the motion was excessive
• noting in dicta that defendant’s pro se motion to vacate conviction “had no legal effect”
• rejecting defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance when the jurors at issue had expressed no fixed opinion nor bias and confirmed that they could be fair and impartial, despite their customer relationship with bank that had been robbed
• “Veal concedes that he did not make a request to strike the jurors. Therefore, the issue was waived for direct review.”
• “generalized speculation about the delay’s effect on witness memories and evidence is not the kind of ‘specific evidence’ required to show prejudice in the appellate-delay context” (citation and punctuation omitted)
• “[W]e have repeatedly found that the failure to make [a showing of prejudice] in an appellate delay claim [is] fatal to the claim, even when the other three factors weigh in the appellant’s favor.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).