United States v. Charles J. Jackson

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 twenty-two-month post-indictment delay was not enough to excuse the defendant from demonstrating actual prejudice where the Government did not give a valid reason for the delay
• holding that a twenty-month delay between indictment and arrest, attributable to government’s negligence, “was not so long as to justify an inference of prejudice at the fourth step of the Barker inquiry”
• holding that dismissal for speedy-trial violation was not warranted because a twenty-month delay was not “extraordinary under our precedents,” there was no evidence of bad faith by the government, and no actual prejudice to the defendant
• holding a nearly two-year delay between a defendant’s indictment and his arrest, attributable to the government’s negligence, did not satisfy the actual prejudice prong
• observing that Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 657–58 (1992
• noting the requirement that a prosecutor’s comments be viewed in their full context when evaluating them for impropriety

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).