BROTHMAN ET AL.

v.

MICHIGAN

Citator

Cited By (59 total)

• United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1976)
  …endant’s due process rights and cause dismissal of the charges if the delay is such as to impair the defendant’s ability to defend himself or is deliberate and [*452] unjustified. United States v. Weinberg, 383 F. 2d 60, 65 (CA2 1967), cert. denied, 389 U. S. 1044 (1968); United States v. Harbin, 377 F. 2d 78 (CA4 1967); Godfrey v. United States, 123 U. S. App. D. C. 219, 358 F. 2d 850 (1966); Powell v. United States, 122 U. S. App. D. C. 229, 231, 352 F. 2d 705, 707 (1965). The effect of such delay, however,…
• United States v. Bowen, 500 F.2d 960 (9th Cir. 1974)
  …884, 886 (10th Cir. 1970); People v. Washburn, 265 Cal.App.2d 665, 71 Cal.Rptr. 577, 581 (2d Dist. 1968); State v. Smolen, 4 Conn.Cir. 385, 232 A. 2d 339 (App.Div.), pet. for certification for appeal denied, 231 A. 2d 283 (Conn.1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1044, 88 S.Ct. 787, 19 L.Ed.2d 835 (1968); State v. Severance, 108 N.H. 404, 237 A. 2d 683 (1968).2 We agree with the government that a fixed-checkpoint search that does not entail significant delay is probably less offensive than a roving-patrol search…
• United States v. Grady, 544 F.2d 598 (2d Cir. 1976)
  …of an indictment with a statute of limitations. Once an indictment is brought, the statute of limitations is tolled as to the charges contained in that indictment. United States v. Feinberg, 383 F. 2d 60, 64-65 (2d Cir. 1967) (dictum), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1044, 88 S.Ct. 788, 19 L.Ed.2d 836 (1968); Powell v. United States, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 229, 352 F. 2d 705, 707 n.5 (1965) (dictum). This is a sensible application of the policies underlying statutes of limitations. The defendants are put on timely notice,…