barker v wingo quimbee

"[9], U.S. Attorney Campbell presented the case to the grand jury personally. See Pollard v. United States, 352 U. S. 354, 352 U. S. 361 (1957). Joint representation is a means of insuring against reciprocal recrimination.

It countered the state’s argument from the lower court with the note that protections for “the security of person and property” need be “liberally construed”. The Court commented on the backlog of cases, mainly in urban courts, that often enable defendants to negotiate a plea for a lesser offense.

It is clear that the length of delay between arrest and trial -- well over five years -- was extraordinary. The court should assess such factors as the length of and reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant. There is also prejudice if defense witnesses are unable to recall accurately events of the distant past. The Court dwelt at length on the defendants' claim.

Justice White, joined by Justice Brennan, concurred in the verdict, and specifically commented that an overcrowded docket would not be a reasonable basis for a delay.


We hardly need add that, if delay is attributable to the defendant, then his waiver may be given effect under standard waiver doctrine, the demand rule aside.
[Footnote 27] Moreover, for the reasons earlier expressed, society has a particular interest in bringing swift prosecutions, and society's representatives are the ones who should protect that interest.

jail is simply dead time. See United States v. Hill, 310 F.2d 601 (CA4 1962); Bruce v. United States, 351 F.2d 318 (CA5 1965), cert. United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, Federal prosecution of public corruption in the United States, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glasser_v._United_States&oldid=962701909, United States Sixth Amendment conflict-free counsel case law, United States Sixth Amendment jury case law, Conspiracy to defraud the United States case law, United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, Murphy, joined by Roberts, Black, Reed, Douglas, Byrnes. [7] Roth was fined $500; Horton was placed on two-years probation with a suspended sentence of one year and one day. The United States Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari in 1972. The United States Supreme Court has not defined “speedy” and in its place ruled in Barker v. Wingo in 1972 that only in situations that the delay is unjustified and proved to be detrimental to the accused case can the accused claim a violation of this right (Gaines, Muthu S. Weerasinghe Mitchell, Bail Reform and the Constitutionality of Pretrial Detention, 55 Va.L.Rev. United States v. Ewell, 383 U. S. 116, 383 U. S. 120 (1966). 846, 853 (1957); Note, The Lagging Right to a Speedy Trial, 51 Va.L.Rev. [72] Judge Sullivan dismissed a different indictment against Kretske on April 9. A defendant has no duty to bring himself to trial; [Footnote 26] the State has that duty as well as the duty of insuring that the trial is consistent with due process. . It is especially unfortunate to impose them on those persons who are ultimately found to be innocent. To this continuance, Barker objected unsuccessfully. See also Note, The Right to a Speedy Trial, supra, for another slightly different approach. This is indeed a serious consequence, because it means that a defendant who may be guilty of a serious crime will go free, without having been tried. "[I]n large measure because of the many procedural safeguards provided an accused, the ordinary procedures for criminal prosecution are designed to move at a deliberate pace. "[5], The government's first witness, U.S. The police searched the entire house, including the suspect’s room, her child’s room, and the basement of the house.

Barker's counsel did not object to the 13th or 14th continuances, but objected to the 15th continuance (March 1963 on the date of Barker's trial; the prosecution sought a continuance due to illness of the former sheriff, the chief investigating officer in the case) as well as the 16th continuance (June 1963, requested for the sheriff's continued illness; while granting the continuance the Circuit Court ruled that the matter had to come to trial at the next term or would be dismissed for lack of prosecution). Moreover, the longer an accused is free awaiting trial, the more tempting becomes his opportunity to jump bail and escape. The amendments have been put into place by the U.S. Constitution to ensure that every American has equal rights, no matter their gender, race, or religion. "[31], The defendants argued: (1) that the indictment should have been quashed because of the absence of women from the grand jury;[31] (2) that the indictment was not returned in open court;[32] (3) that the indictment was duplicitous, inconsistent, and vague;[33] (4) that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict;[34] (5) that the trial judge should have granted a continuance, rather than appoint Stewart to represent Kretske;[35] (6) that Roth should have been severed from the other defendants;[36] (7) that the reports of the Alcohol Tax Unit were hearsay;[36] (7) that the two government exhibits not admitted into evidence were sent to the jury during its deliberations;[36] (8) that Glasser had been cross-examined on matters not pertinent to the charge and not within the scope of his direct examination;[37] (9) that the cross-examination of U.S. Attorney Campbell had been unduly restricted;[37] (10) that evidence beyond the scope of the bill of particulars had been introduced;[37] (11) that there was insufficient corroboration of the accomplice testimony against Kretske;[38] (12) that certain testimony of Alexander Campbell was erroneously admitted;[39] (13) that the admission of various prejudicial evidence had the cumulative effect of denying the defendants a fair trial;[40] (14) that the trial judge's cross-examination of witnesses and other comments crossed the line into advocacy;[41] and (15) that the trial judge should have granted a new trial because of the exclusion of women from the jury pool. Counsel also conceded this: "Now, it's true that the reason for this delay was the Commonwealth of Kentucky's desire to secure the testimony of the accomplice, Silas Manning.

Shelley V Kraemer Date, Don't Pull Your Love Lyrics, How To Speak Black Speech, Traits Definition Biology, What Does E Mean In Citation, Light Green Color Palette, How Old Is Nathan Lynn, Mnre Subsidy, Loving Someone Who Doesn't Know How To Love, E-6 Pay Navy, Hcbs Waiver, Political Culture Is A Term Used To Describe, Home Efficiency Rebate, Antonym For Sleepy, Gsp 600 Vs Arctis Pro, Holiday Film Netflix, Keith Knight Instagram, Renewable Energy Statistics, Kpoo Spinitron, Decoupling Inventory, Betts V Brady And Gideon V Wainwright, Rate Formula Finance, Nexus 5 Cell Phone, Nature Captions For Photos, Scr Radio, Facts About Foxes, Types Of Choreography, How To Pronounce Yeet, Five Fingers Movie 2019, St Helena Surnames,

Categorised in: Uncategorized

This post was written by