United States v. Anthony Rice

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defendant’s assertion of his rights nearly a year after his arraignment “cuts decidedly” against him
• holding that failure to dismiss indictment was not plain error where only some of the Barker factors favored defendant
• noting that the need to translate thousands of hours of taped conversations into English justified delay under the STA because defense counsel could not provide adequate representation without the translations
• affirming convictions on plain-error review, despite a “debatable, if not persuasive, Sixth Amendment claim under de novo review”
• upholding sufficiency of district court’s findings including that defense would not “be in a position to adequately provide the quality of representation the defendants are entitled to” absent delay
• “Speedy Trial Act claims do not on their own preserve a constitutional 9 claim to a speedy trial.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).