ConCrimPro / Adj

Williams v. Illinois

Lab reports that are not formal are nontestimonial.

McMillan v. Pennsylvania

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not violated where a state statute subjects a convicted defendant to a mandatory minimum sentence, not exceeding that otherwise permitted without the act, if the sentencing judge finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a certain fact existed at the time of the crime.

Blackledge v. Perry

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when an increased punishment after appeal has a real likelihood of being the result of vindictiveness.

J. E.B. v. Alabama

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits peremptory challenges based on gender.

Williams v. Florida

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are not violated when the defense must disclose its alibi witnesses to the prosecution prior to trial.

Duncan v. Louisiana

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a right to a jury trial in all state criminal cases—were they to be tried in federal court—would be eligible for trial by jury under the Sixth Amendment.

Gideon v. Wainwright

The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel to the states wholesale.

New Jersey v. Portash

Testimony compelled by a grant of immunity for those called before a state grand jury is coerced and involves the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination in its most pristine form. It may not be used for any purpose, including impeachment.

Maryland v. Craig

The Confrontation Clause can be satisfied without face-to-face confrontation where the denial of physical confrontation is necessary to further an important public policy and the reliability of the testimony is otherwise assured because the witness testifies under oath, is subject to cross-examination, and can be observed by a jury.

Bullcoming v. New Mexico

The Confrontation Clause generally requires the prosecution to introduce a forensic laboratory report containing testimonial certification through the in-court testimony of the scientist who certified the report or observed the test.

Brown v. Ohio

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment bars successive prosecution and cumulative punishment for greater and lesser include offenses because a lesser included offense requires no proof beyond that required for the greater offense.

Oregon v. Kennedy

The Double Jeopardy Clause only prohibits retrying a defendant after the defendant requested a mistrial if the prosecutor intended to pressure the defendant into seeking the mistrial.

Singer v. United States

"A defendant's only constitutional right concerning the method of trial is to an impartial trial by jury." There is "no constitutional impediment to conditioning a waiver of this right on the consent of the prosecuting and the trial judge."

Arizona v. Washington

"Manifest necessity" for granting a mistrial means that different standards are appropriate for mistrials granted for different reasons. Usually "high degree of necessity" when prosecution has a defect in its case, justifying higher scrutiny. If jury is unable to reach a fair verdict, it is "manifest necessity."

Turner v. Murray

"[A] capital defendant accused of an interracial crime is entitled to have prospective jurors informed of the race of the victim and questioned on the issue of racial bias."

Burch v. Louisiana

"[T]hat conviction by a nonunanimous six-member jury in a state criminal trial for a nonpetty offense deprives an accused of his constitutional right to trial by jury."

Lockhart v. McCree

"[T]he Constitution does not prohibit the States from 'death qualifying' juries in capital cases."

Duren v. Missouri

A state law that causes a group of people in the community to be underrepresented in the jury-selection process by allowing automatic exemption from service for that group violates a defendant's right to a trial by a jury that is a fair cross-section of the community.

Washington v. Texas

A state law that prohibits persons charged or convicted as coparticipants in a crime from testifying on behalf of one another violates the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process.

Apodaca v. Oregon/Johnson v. Louisiana

A state law that authorizes conviction for a crime on a guilty verdict issued by nine out of twelve jurors does not violate the defendant's constitutional due process rights.

Carter v. Kentucky (1981)

A trial court judge has a constitutional obligation to instruct the jury that it may draw no adverse inference from a defendant's decision not to testify when the defendant requests such an instruction.

Giles v. California

A wrongful act of a defendant creates a forfeiture of his Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness against him only when the act was designed to prevent the witness from testifying.

Doggett v. United States

An eight and one-half years delay between indictment and arrest due to the government's negligence violates the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The indictment is when the clock starts.

United States v. Mechanik

Defendant complained about grand jury indictment prior to verdict. No violation because any problems were cured by finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. "The moving finger writes, and having written, moves on."

Berghuis v. Smith

Defendants have the right to a trial by a jury selected from a fair cross-section of the community. Must show systematic exclusion.

United States v. Calandra

No right to have an attorney or to testify in grand jury.

Costello v. United States

No rules of evidence in grand jury proceedings, although privilege does exist.

Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California

A state is not obligated to recognize a constitutional right to self-representation on direct appeal from a criminal conviction.

North Carolina v. Alford

A criminal defendant can voluntarily, knowingly and understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence, even if he testifies that he did not in fact commit the crime, if he intelligently concludes that a guilty plea is in his best interest and the record contains strong evidence of actual guilt.

Fletcher v. Weir

A criminal defendant is not denied due process when the prosecution impeaches a defendant for the defendant's post-arrest silence when Miranda rights were not read to the defendant upon arrest.

Jenkins v. Anderson

A criminal defendant who testifies at trial may be impeached by his pre-arrest, pre-Miranda warning silence without violating the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Rock v. Arkansas (1987)

A criminal defendant's constitutional right to testify on her own behalf precludes the prosecution from excluding hypnotically refreshed testimony.

Portuondo v. Agard (2000)

A criminal defendant's constitutional rights are not violated by a prosecutorial comment to the jury indicating that the defendant may have gained an advantage by choosing to testify last during trial.

Doyle v. Ohio

A criminal defendant's due process rights are violated when the trial court allows the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant about an exculpatory version of events that the defendant did not reveal to police after receiving Miranda warnings.

Lafler v. Cooper

A criminal defense attorney fails to provide effective assistance of counsel required under the Sixth Amendment if he prejudices the defendant by advising against acceptance of a favorable plea bargain offered by the prosecution.

Gerstein v. Pugh

A defendant charged with a crime by information may not be detained for an extended period of time without a judicial determination of probable cause (not a critical stage, so right to counsel does not attach).

United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno

A defendant charged with violating a statute that prohibits certain conduct from occurring during and in relation to a crime of violence may be prosecuted in any district where the underlying crime of violence occurred.

Kyles v. Whitely

A defendant is entitled to a new trial under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1964), if the prosecution withheld multiple pieces of favorable evidence that, taken together, undermine confidence in the verdict. Very fact-intensive inquiry.

McMann v. Richardson

A defendant who alleges that he pleaded guilty because of a prior coerced confession is not, without more, entitled to a hearing on his petition for habeas corpus.

Brady v. United States

A defendant's guilty plea is not invalid under the Fifth Amendment if it is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent and done to avoid the risk of a harsher penalty.

Bank of Novia Scotia v. United States

A federal court may not dismiss a grand jury indictment on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct prior to the conclusion of trial without a finding that the defendant was prejudiced by prosecutorial misconduct.

United States v. Armstrong

A federal criminal defendant making a selective-prosecution claim must demonstrate that the Government's prosecutorial policy was motivated by a discriminatory purpose and that similarly situated individuals of different races were not prosecuted.

United States v. Nobles

A federal trial court can compel defense counsel to produce witness statements at trial for the purpose of examining witnesses.

Bartkus v. Illinois

A single act can violate both state and federal law and a defendant may be subject to punishment by both the state and the federal systems.

Boykin v. Alabama

A guilty plea is only constitutionally valid if it is apparent from the record that the plea was knowing and voluntary.

Jackson v. Virginia

A judge hearing a habeas corpus proceeding must interpret all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. The judge must then determine whether any rational fact finder could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If not, the conviction must be reversed.

Riverside v. McLaughlin

A judicial determination of probable cause made within 48 hours of arrest is generally sufficiently prompt.

Burks v. United States

A jury verdict may not be overturned if there is significant evidence, when viewed in a similar light, which supports that verdict.

Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company

A private litigant in a civil case may not use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on account of their race because the exercise of peremptory challenges invokes state action.

United States v. Agurs

A prosecutor's failure to provide information to defense counsel will not deprive a defendant of a fair trial unless specific information was requested by defense counsel or if the withheld information contained perjured testimony (and, w/ perjured testimony, "any reasonable likelihood" it could have affected judgment of jury). Or if there was no request but the information would have created reasonable doubt.

Tibbs v. Florida

A reversal of a conviction based on the weight of the evidence, unlike a reversal based on insufficient evidence where the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes a retrial. Massey does not mean that acquittal was the only proper verdict. Instead, the appellate court sits as a "thirteenth juror" and disagrees with the jury's resolution of the conflicting testimony.

Wardius v. Oregon

Acceleration doctrine (defense disclosure of alibi witnesses) is constitutional, but it's a two-way street. Prosecution must disclose names of any witnesses that will testify regarding alibi issue.

Nichols v. United States

Actual/potential threshold is only relevant in misdemeanor cases. Right to appointed counsel attaches to all felony charges.

United States v. Salerno

An arrestee may be detained prior to trial if the government's regulatory interest in public safety is legitimate and compelling, provided there are procedural protections in place to safeguard the arrestee's liberty interests.

Douglas v. California

An indigent defendant has a right to have counsel appointed during an appeal as a matter of right.

United States v. Lovasco

An investigative delay only violates the Due Process Clause if it caused actual prejudice and the reason was impermissible.

Blakely v. Washington

Any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Apprendi v. New Jersey

Any fact, other than a prior conviction, that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

Johnson v. Zerbst

At federal level, person has a 6th Amendment right to an attorney in all criminal felony cases

Almendarez-Torres v. United States

At sentencing, a prior conviction only need be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

Stack v. Boyle

Bail set at an amount higher than that necessary to assure that the defendant will stand trial and submit to sentence if found guilty, is excessive under the Eighth Amendment.

Halbert v. Michigan

Based on state system that didn't allow discretionary appeals from guilty/no lo contendere pleas: you have a right to appointed counsel on first appeal.

Alleyne v. United States

Because mandatory minimum sentences increase the penalty for a crime, any fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an "element" of the crime that must be submitted to the jury.

Coy v. Iowa

Child victim exceptions to right of face-to-face confrontation would have to be based on individualized factual findings, not general legislative finding.

United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms

Collateral estoppel doesn't apply in civil proceeding where lower standard of proof applies.

Ristaino v. Ross

Constitutional due process does not require that prospective jurors in a case be questioned concerning their possible racial prejudice. Only required with heightened risk of racial bias.

United States v. Williams

Courts have a supervisory power that allows them to control their own procedures but not those of the grand jury. Prosecutors don't have to present exculpatory evidence and there's no attachment of double jeopardy.

Powell v. Alabama

Due process requires that criminal defendants have the right to counsel both at trial and in the time leading up to trial when consultation and preparation take place.

Betts v. Brady (overruled)

Due process right to appointed counsel at state expense incorporated to states only when failure would be "offensive to the common and fundamental ideas of fairness."

Ohio v. Reiner

Even if you assert innocence you still may assert your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

People v. Vilardi (N.Y. 1990)

Evidence specifically requested by the defense is material, and the failure of the prosecution to disclose it requires a new trial, if there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence would affect the outcome of the trial.

Harris v. United States (overruled)

Facts that increase the minimum sentence are distinct from facts that extend a sentence beyond the maximum. The judge may find the former under McMillan. But the latter needs to be presented to the jury as elements.

United States v. Ruiz

Federal prosecutors are not constitutionally obligated to disclose impeachment information relating to any informants or other witnesses before entering into a binding plea agreement with a criminal defendant.

United States v. Thomas (4th Cir. 1997)

If the record discloses any possibility that the request to discharge a juror stems from the juror's view of the sufficiency of the government's evidence, the court must deny the request.

Blockburger v. United States

If two offenses require proof of an additional fact which the other does not, they do not comprise the same offense.

United States v. Goodwin

If you add charges in pre-verdict phase, we presume the prosecution is not vindictive.

Argersinger v. Hamlin

If you face potential imprisonment, you have a right to appointed counsel.

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts

In a criminal case, laboratory reports prepared by government analysts are inadmissible against the defendant because such reports constitute testimonial evidence under the Confrontation Clause.

Ashe v. Swenson

In both federal and state courts, when an issue of ultimate fact has been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties. If it could have been grounded on some other claim, though, the judgment is too ambiguous to invoke collateral estoppel.

Holmes v. South Carolina

In order to have a "meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense," the defendant must be entitled to introduce evidence of a third party's guilt.

Griffin v. California (1965)

It is a violation of the Fifth Amendment for the prosecution to comment on the defendant's silence or for the trial judge to instruct the jury that the defendant's silence can be evidence of guilt.

Lakeside v. Oregon (1978)

It is constitutionally permissible for a trial court to instruct the jury, over the objection of defense counsel, not to draw adverse inferences from the defendant's failure to testify.

Richardson v. Marsh

It is not a violation of the Confrontation Clause to admit a defendant's confession implicating a co-defendant if the confession has been redacted to omit any mention of the co-defendant and the jury has been instructed not to use the confession against the co-defendant.

United States v. Bruton (severance)

It violates a defendant's Confrontation Clause rights when a co-defendant's confession is admitted at their joint trial, even if the jury receives a limiting instruction that the confession cannot be used against the defendant.

Murphy v. Florida

Juror exposure to information about a state defendant's prior convictions or to news accounts of the crime with which he is charged do not alone presumptively deprive the defendant of due process.

Williams v. Florida

Jury of twelve is not required. Six is OK.

Batson v. Kentucky (1986)

Make out a prima facie case sufficient to raise an inference of racial discrimination based on (1) a pattern of striking black jurors, or (2) the prosecutor's questions and statements. Prosecution must offer a race-neutral explanation. Then the burden is on the defendant to show prosecutor is full of ... bologna

Ross v. Moffitt

Neither the Due Process Clause nor the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require that the state provide counsel for indigent defendants during discretionary appeals or petitions for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.

Gagnon v. Scarpelli

No right to appointed counsel at parole and probation hearings.

In re Groban

No right to assistance of counsel in grand jury trial or administrative investigatory proceeding.

Gray v. Maryland

Out of court statements made by a codefendant that incriminate another defendant are prejudicial and are not admissible at trial even with a limiting instruction and even where the name of the defendant is replaced with an obvious blank space, or the word "deleted, or some other similar symbol.

Crawford v. Washington

Out of court testimonial statements are only admissible where the witness is unavailable and there was a prior opportunity for the defendant to cross-examine the witness.

Hill v. Lockhart

Prejudice is shown, in an ineffective assistance claim, if they would have been better off if they went to trial.

State v. Reldan (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1979)

Prejudice occurs when cases are joined (1) where a defendant becomes embarrassed or confounded in presenting separate defenses (latent hostility), (2) where the jury may use evidence of one of the crimes charged to infer a criminal disposition on the part of the defendant from which it is then assumed that he must be guilty of the other crime, or (3) the jury may cumulate the evidence of the various crimes charged and find guilt when, if the cases had been considered separately, it would not have so found.

Coleman v. Alabama

Preliminary hearing is a critical stage at which the right to counsel attaches. (A defendant has the right to counsel during any pre-trial confrontation where there is the potential for substantial prejudice to his right to a fair trial as affected by his right to meaningfully cross-examine a witness and have effective assistance of counsel at the trial.)

Georgia v. McCollum

Prosecutor may also invoke Batson when defendant exercises peremptory strikes in a racially discriminatory manner.

Bordenkircher v. Hayes

Prosecutor may threaten additional charge for defendant that refuses to take plea bargain.

Alabama v. Shelton

Right to appointed counsel before receiving suspended sentence.

Rothgery v. Gillespie County

Right to counsel attaches when prosecution starts, at which point a lawyers must be appointed.

Wainwright v. Greenfield

Right to remain silent begins at arrest, prosecutor cannot use silence against defendant when defendant does not testify.

Bloom v. Illinois

Same jury trial threshold for criminal contempt—actual imprisonment for more than six months.

Codispoti v. Pennsylvania

Same jury trial threshold for criminal contempt—actual imprisonment from aggregated acts of contempt under post-verdict adjudications.

Corbitt v. New Jersey

Sentencing scheme that imposes higher sentence for defendants found guilty after a jury trial, instead of pleading, is not unconstitutional.

United States v. Berkowitz (5th Cir. Unit B 1981)

Severance is required where defenses are mutually antagonistic.

Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n

State grants of immunity also include federal grant of same level of immunity.

Michigan v. Bryant

Statements made to assist police in addressing an ongoing emergency are not testimonial for Confrontation purposes because they are not made for the primary purpose of creating a record for trial. Considered three factors: (1) Presence of ongoing emergency (not necessary), (2) formality, and (3) motives of parties.

Davis v. Washington

Statements made to law enforcement personnel are nontestimonial and not subject to the Confrontation Clause under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency (911 call).

Hammon v. Indiana

Statements made to law enforcement personnel are nontestimonial and not subject to the Confrontation Clause under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency (domestic violence interview).

Indiana v. Edwards

States are permitted to insist upon representation by counsel for those competent enough to stand trial but who still suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not sufficiently competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves.

Lem Woon v. Oregon

States can prosecute individuals on an information, without a grand jury.

United States v. Burr

The President may be subpoenaed both to testify at a criminal proceeding and to produce documents (subpoena duces tecum), provided the documents are relevant to the case and are not protected by executive privilege.

Lewis v. United States

The Sixth Amendment does not entitle a criminal defendant to a jury trial on petty offenses, even when conviction on multiple petty offenses could result in a sentence greater than six months in prison.

Baldwin v. New York/Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to a trial by jury for all "serious" offenses that require imprisonment for more than six months.

Missouri v. Frye

The Sixth Amendment requires defense counsel to communicate to a defendant formal plea offers from the prosecution.

United States v. Marion

The Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial is not activated until arrest or indictment, and a pre-indictment delay is only cause for dismissal if it violates the statute of limitations or due process.

Padilla v. Kentucky

The Sixth Amendment's requirement of effective assistance of counsel requires an attorney to provide accurate advice concerning the potential deportation consequences of a noncitizen defendant's guilty plea to a crime. Not a "collateral effect" per se.

Taylor v. Louisiana

The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments demand that venires, panels and lists from which petit juries are drawn represent a fair cross section of the community. Cannot systematically exclude women.

United States v. Bruton (confrontation)

The admission of a defendant's confession incriminating a co-defendant violates the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.

Godinez v. Moran

The competency to plead guilty or to waive the right to counsel must be measured by the same standard as the competency standard for standing trial.

Powers v. Ohio

The defendant in a Batson has standing to assert the claim on behalf of the struck juror.

United States v. Booker

The enhancement of a sentence under Federal Sentencing Guidelines based on judicial findings of fact by a preponderance of the evidence violates the Sixth Amendment.

Arizona v. Youngblood

The failure of a state to preserve physical evidence that could have been useful to the defendant is not a violation of due process unless bad faith on the part of the police is shown.

United States v. Mandujano

The failure to give Miranda warnings to a witness prior to a grand jury interrogation does not provide grounds for suppressing admission of the witness' statements in a subsequent prosecution for perjury.

Swain v. Alabama

The prosecutor's striking of Negroes from the jury panel in one particular case under the peremptory challenge system, which permits a challenge without a reason stated, does not constitute denial of equal protection of the laws.

Mitchell v. United States (1999)

The right against self-incrimination sticks even during sentencing, even when defendant pleads guilty.

Faretta v. California

The right to defend is personal and defendants have the constitutional right to represent themselves at trial if they so choose—any waiver must be knowing and intelligent.

Ballew v. Georgia

The use of a five-person jury does not satisfy a criminal defendant's right to a trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Weatherford v. Bursey

There is no constitutional right to discovery.

Ohio v. Roberts (overruled)

To be admissible hearsay under the Confrontation Clause, the declarant must be unavailable and the statement must have adequate "indicia of reliability."

Strickland v. Washington

To establish the ineffective assistance of counsel, a convicted defendant must show that his counsel's performance was deficient because the lawyer did not act as a reasonably competent attorney, and that he was prejudiced by the deficiency because there is a reasonable probability that, but for his attorney's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

Giglio v. United States

Under Brady, evidence that might impeach the prosecution's witness (prior inconsistent statements, prior crimes, or prior offers of leniency) is material exculpatory evidence that must be turned over to the defense.

United States v. Bagley

Under Brady, the prosecution's failure to turn over favorable evidence only requires a new trial if a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different if the evidence was turned over.

Henderson v. Morgan

Under the Due Process Clause, a guilty plea is not knowing and voluntary if the defendant is not advised of a critical element of the offense.

Brady v. Maryland

Under the Due Process Clause, the prosecution must turn over evidence favorable to the defense upon request if the evidence is material to either culpability or punishment.

Simpson v. Florida

Unless the jury verdict in the second trial "could have [been] grounded . . . upon an issue other than that which the defendant seeks to foreclose from consideration," the double jeopardy provision vitiates petitioner's conviction.

Kastigar v. United States

Use and derivative use immunity overcome claim to Fifth Amendment privilege. Derivative use bars prosecution from using evidence derived from testimony against declarant.

United States v. Walden (4th. Cir. 1972)

Venue for conspiracy would be proper wherever there was an agreement or an overt act in furtherance of the agreement.

Santobello v. New York

When a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.

United States v. Jorn

When a trial court abuses its discretion in terminating a criminal trial before a verdict, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits retrial of the defendant.

Hoffman v. United States

When privilege is asserted the judge has to make a determination about whether there is a real Fifth Amendment interest in the questions asked, or whether the claim to privilege is illusory. Embraces questions "which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a federal crime."

Illinois v. Somerville

When the declaration of a mistrial implements a reasonable state policy and terminates a proceeding that might have ended in a result that could be easily overturned by one of the parties, the defendant's interest in obtaining a verdict from the first jury is outweighed by the equally legitimate demand for public justice.

Ham v. South Carolina

When the defendant makes a timely request, a judge must interrogate potential jurors about any racial prejudice they may harbor.

Downum v. United States

When the prosecution allows a jury to be impaneled but has failed to ensure the presence of its own witness, the prosecution has simply entered upon trial without sufficient evidence to convict and jeopardy has attached.

North Carolina v. Pearce

Where a judge imposes a more severe sentence upon a defendant after a new trial, he must state his reasons for doing so and his reasons must be based on objective information concerning identifiable conduct by the defendant occurring after the original sentencing proceeding. There is a presumption of judicial vindictiveness, which is rebuttable by showing add'l factors judge was not aware of. There are certain instances where it will not be presumed: (1) trial before a second jury, (2) a different trial judge, or (3) if it's the result of different trial.

Taylor v. Illinois

Where the defendant's discovery violation is sufficiently serious, the Compulsory Process Clause does not prohibit a trial judge from refusing to allow an undisclosed witness to testify.

Missouri v. Hunter

Where the legislature specifically authorizes cumulative punishment under two statutes, regardless of whether those two statutes proscribe the "same" conduct under Blockburger, the Double Jeopardy Clause is not violated if the defendant is charged and convicted of both crimes in a single trial.

Barker v. Wingo

Whether a defendant's right to a speedy trial has been violated requires applying a balancing test in which the conduct of the prosecution and the conduct of the defendant are weighed and the court considers (1) the length of the delay, (2) the government's reason for the delay, (3) whether and how the defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial, and (4) whether the defendant was prejudiced by the delay.

Scott v. Illinois

You only have a right to appointed counsel if you are actually imprisoned.