State v. Tucker

How courts have described this case

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

• holding appointment and preparation of new counsel due to conflict of interest was neither party’s fault
• interpreting ten month delay as presumptively prejudicial
• interpreting ten month delay as presumptively prejudicial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Humphrey v. Cunningham
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 1990-12-28· cited 22×
• In Re Thomas J.
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 2002-11-19· cited 16×
• State v. Cotell
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 1998-12-31· cited 14×
• State v. Brooks
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 2011-10-27· cited 10×
• Francis v. People
  Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands· 2015-10-23· cited 10×
• State v. Fletcher
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 1992-05-28· cited 9×
• State v. Paone
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 1997-07-28· cited 3×

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Barker v. Wingo
  Supreme Court· 1972-06-22· cited 12,108×
• State v. Weitzman
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 1981-03-06· cited 35×
• State v. Cole
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 1978-12-06· cited 29×
• State v. Colbath
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 1988-03-10· cited 25×
• State v. Langone
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 1985-08-05· cited 19×
• State v. Dufield
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 1979-01-31· cited 16×
• State v. Monahan
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 1984-05-04· cited 9×