Shavin v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a period of delay was “excusable” under a constitutional speedy trial claim “based on [the defendant’s] admitted consent” in writing to the resolution of his pretrial motions and the trial of a codefendant
• holding that the deciding factors were the defendant’s delay in asserting his speedy trial right and the fact that he was tried within six months of asserting it, a period substantially shorter than the one-year period after which prejudice is presumed
• finding that a delay of two and a half years “was excusable based on appellant’s admitted consent”
• holding that the deciding factors in denying the defendant’s constitutional claim were his delay in asserting his speedy trial right and the fact that he was tried within six months of asserting it, a period substantially shorter than the one-year period after which prejudice is presumed
• over two years for a misdemeanor

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).