United States v. Margheim

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a 23-month delay was presumptively prejudicial, thereby triggering an analysis under the Barker factors
• noting that defendant requested a 120-day continuance while the government only requested a 37- day continuance, and concluding that “[f|rom a strictly numerical perspective, it is impossible to conclude that the second Barker factor is a victory for [the defendant]”
• noting “the frequency and force of [defendant’s] objections” in weighing the strength of defendant’s assertion of his speedy-trial right (cleaned up)
• upholding the district court’s prejudice ruling on the more important impairment-of-defense prejudice factor
• counting 356 days between May 24, 2011, and May 15, 2012
• “Moving for many 9 continuances, or otherwise indicating that the defendant is not pursuing a swift 10 resolution of his case will tip the balance of this factor heavily against the 11 defendant.” (text only) (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).