United States v. Santiago-Becerril

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that no misconduct occurred where, despite \forceful\ warnings regarding the right not to testify and potential SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0
• stating that “fifteen months of pretrial incarceration was insufficient to establish a constitutional level of prejudice”
• assuming that a fifteen month delay was presumptively prejudicial so as to trigger further inquiry
• assuming that a fifteen month delay is presumptively prejudicial and finding it “long enough to tip the scales slightly in favor of [the defendant]”
• assuming that a fifteen month delay was presumptively prejudicial so as to trigger further inquiry
• finding that because the plaintiff required no 20 accommodation, there could be no adverse action

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).