Document: 474 U.S. 302 106 S.Ct. 648 88 L.Ed.2d 640 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Kenneth Moses LOUD HAWK et al. No. 84-1361. Argued Nov. 12, 1985. Decided Jan. 21, 1986. Rehearing Denied March 3, See 475 1061, 1289. Syllabus Respondents were arrested and indicted in November 1975 on counts of possessing firearms dynamite. In 1976, the Federal District Court granted respondents' motion to suppress evidence relating dynamite counts, Government promptly filed a notice appeal requested continuance. The denied this request and, when answered "not ready" after case was called for trial, dismissed indictment. appealed dismissal, two appeals consolidated. August 1979, Appeals reversed suppression order, ordered that be reinstated, held erred dismissing counts. respondents petition certiorari, which denied. Appeals' mandate issued 1980, 46 months its from dismissal indictment, during time unconditionally released. On remand, reindict charges. dismiss ground vindictive prosecution as one respondent but it other respondents, both these appealed. During appeals, remained free their own recognizance. July 1982, October 1982 petitions rehearing. then January 1983. May 1983, again ruling Sixth Amendment right speedy trial had been violated. affirmed. Held: 1. indictment all restrictions liberty should excluded length delay considered under Speedy Trial Clause Amendment. United States v. MacDonald, 456 1, 102 1497, 71 696. Pp. 310-312. (a) Where no is outstanding, only actual restraints imposed by arrest holding answer criminal charge engages protection Clause. Here, not incarcerated subject bail, further judicial proceedings would have necessary them any restraints. 310-311. (b) fact Government's desire prosecute matter public record insufficient count question toward claim. Nor does appear at evidentiary hearing remand first constitute sort "actual restraint" required application And necessity obtain counsel while technically sufficient trigger 311-312. 2. attributable interlocutory weigh effectively towards claim Under balancing test Barker Wingo, 407 514, 92 2182, 33 101, courts must accommodate competing concerns orderly appellate review trial. 312-317. Three factors —the delay, extent asserted rights, prejudice respondents—fail support finding violation 314-315. remaining factor, reason also fails carry claims. justified where could otherwise presented issue exclusion strong. Similarly, second because proceeded against whom dismissed, here too position 315-316. (c) A defendant bears heavy burden showing an unreasonable caused or wholly unjustified court. 316-317. 3. facts, delays sufficiently long justify alleged P. 317. 741 F.2d 1184 (CA9 1984), reversed. POWELL, J., delivered opinion Court, BURGER, C.J., WHITE, REHNQUIST, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, dissenting opinion, BRENNAN, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, joined, post, p. Bruce N. Kuhlik, petitioner. Kenneth Saul Stern, Milwaukie, Or., respondents. Justice POWELL Court. 1 we decide, first, whether Amendment1 applies neither nor subjected official restraint, second, certain occasioned properly weighed assessing divided panel Ninth Circuit most 90 arrests initial until Court's 1983 claims We conclude outstanding find establish Accordingly, reverse 2 * view nature claim, state factual procedural history some detail. 14, 1975, pursuant tip Bureau Investigation, Oregon troopers stopped vehicles search several federal fugitives.2 After exchange gunfire motor chase, State Troopers captured Dennis Banks.3 Both locked impounded authorities obtained warrants. 3 Searches over next days disclosed 350 pounds dynamite,4 6 partially assembled bombs, 2,600 rounds ammunition, 150 blasting caps, 9 empty hand grenades, miscellaneous firearms.5 law enforcement officers, apparently unaware consequences, adhered usual policy destroyed agent present destruction photographed explosions. Loud Hawk, 628 1139, 1142 1979). officials preserved wrappers casings. 4 grand jury 25, charges explosives. set week February 9, 1976. December 22, returned five-count superseding This charged with three possession transportation commerce unregistered destructive device (the counts) unlawful counts). 5 Two later, concerning dynamite, arguing intentionally negligently before defense opportunity examine it. initially denying motion,6 continuances behest,7 31, App. Pet. Cert. 157a. weeks order,8 moved continued pending outcome appeal. continuance, ready." Pursuant Rule Criminal Procedure 48(b), Judge prejudice. Six passed since original immediately heard argument 15, affirmed unreported 26, 1977. 88a-118a. motion, court voted 17, 1977, hear en banc. 6, 1978, banc remanded findings participated prejudiced destruction. retained jurisdiction findings. 23, Appeals. 7 7, order directed reinstated. F.2d, 1150. although gone appeal, those Id., 1151. rehearing 1979. petitioned certiorari; 1980. 445 917, 100 1279, 63 602. released time. 8 Following charges.9 number motions June 1980 response indictment,10 including prosecution. 8, KaMook Banks Banks, Render, Hawk. sides recognizance consolidated, expedited consideration. 1981, did decision 29, 1982. sustained issues. 682 841. Respondents' 5, 10, 459 1117, 103 755, 74 972. almost 29 filed. 10 scheduled begin April 11, sought received continuance difficulties locating witnesses more than seven years arrests. Subsequently, date rescheduled 13. reveal reasons latter continuances. Defendants objected each 11 20, 564 F.Supp. 691. appealed, unsuccessfully urged expedite treated expedited, 4, 1984. 30, 1184.11 471 1014, 105 2016, 85 298 (1985), now reverse. II 12 argues 696 (1982), defendants are restraint excluded—weighed considering claim.12 contend even actively pursuing they possibility bail might imposed. possibility, according warrant counting 13 has found . engage particular protections provision Amendment." Marion, 404 307, 320, 455, 463, 30 468 (1971) (emphasis added); see supra, U.S., S.Ct., 1502. As stated MacDonald: "The guarantee designed minimize lengthy incarceration prior reduce lesser, nevertheless substantial, impairment accused shorten disruption life presence unresolved charges." 14 much litigation, bail.13 Further Cf. Klopfer North Carolina, 386 213, 87 988, 18 (1967). "[W]ith personal certainly impaired same degree pending. him 'a citizen suffers his [no longer] accusation: situation compare who answer.' " 15 argue apply period record. Public suspicion, however, favor defendant's freed without "in investigation." 8-9, 309, 457. purport protect effects flowing not, example, limit preindictment investigation though "the [suspect's] knowledge ongoing will cause stress, discomfort, perhaps normal life." 16 appeal—an appearance waived—constitute our precedents basis Finally, persuaded need supports Although retention frequently inconvenience expense, Clause's core concern liberty; shield suspect every expense associated defense. 17 therefore rule substantial liberty, III how restraint. recognized, Amendment's "is important safeguard prevent undue oppressive anxiety accompanying accusation possibilities impair ability defend himself." Ewell, 383 116, 120, 86 773, 776, 627 (1966). These safeguards may unduly process lapse between drawing proper 118-119, 775-776, 517-518, 2185-2186, 101 (1972). 19 At time, there interests review. assurance correctly decided through rights "rights justice." Beavers Haubert, 198 77, 87, 25 573, 576, 49 L.Ed. 950 (1905). legislative U.S.C. § 3731 "makes clear Congress intended remove statutory barriers allow whenever Constitution permit." Wilson, 420 332, 337, 95 1013, 1019, 43 232 (1975). 20 It is, course, true served sometimes stand opposition But, observed 121, 777: 21 "It obtains reversal prior, unsatisfied conviction, he retried course events. [This rule] thought wise protects societal interest trying people crime, rather granting immunization legal error previous enhances probability vigilant strike down convictions tainted reversible error. policies, so carefully interpretation given Double Jeopardy Clause, seriously undercut [an] [that raised obstacle retrial following successful attack conviction]." 22 Barker, adopted four-part determine series infringed upon 530, 2192. That assessed "[l]ength assertion right, defendant." Ibid (footnote omitted). furnishes flexibility take account hand, other. adopt functional consumed pretrial test, do "unsatisfactorily severe remedy dismissal." 522, 2188. A. 23 third, fourth great difficulty application. defines threshold inquiry: enough "presumptively prejudicial." 90-month serious presumptively prejudicial serves factors. Ibid. 24 third factor—the rights—does position. repeatedly grounds, 1192, alone appropriately rights. such assertions "entitled strong weight" determining 531-532, 2192-2193. assertions, viewed light conduct. reminiscent Penelope's tapestry.14 making six filing indisputably frivolous certiorari Hollywood Motor Car Co., 458 263, 3081, 73 754 (1982) (federal denial indictment). They filled docket repetitive unsuccessful motions. See, e.g., n. supra. 26 gave "little most, recognized "impairment fair well result absence loss memory case." 1193. 532, 2193. case, moreover, two-edged sword. proving beyond reasonable doubt. passage make difficult impossible burden. B 27 flag litigants seek capture delay. "different weights assigned different reasons." 531, While "deliberate attempt hamper defense," heavily Government, "overcrowded courts"—as here—would "less heavily." Given review, 313, hardly said ordinarily valid justifies purpose reasonableness consider include strength issue, importance posture and—in cases—the seriousness crime. Herman, 576 1146 (CA5 1978) (Wisdom, J.). For resulting if clearly tangential frivolous. Moreover, offense usually 28 bringing suffered failed show effective weight There bad faith dilatory part. strong, reversals prima facie action. despite offenses, chose appeals. attributed limited class cases appropriate, see, 265-266, 3082-3083, meritorious bear unjustifiable resorts normally able return district reap reward failure receive noted context consideration motions: "Having aid realizing deliberateness employs reaching decision, criticize very upon." Auerbach, 921, 924 1969), denied, 423 676, cert. 399 905, 2195, 560 (1970). 31 allowable Car, But lacking merit additional action seeking ibid., actions. IV 32 cannot hold, facts us, violate judgment ordered. 34 STEVENS join, dissenting. 35 holds today court's unless majority equating (1982). analysis, ignores considerable differences MacDonald gives short shrift protected I disagree majority's (1972), case. 36 concludes arises out lack absolves responsibility provide However, never conditioned solely Those attach anyone "accused,"1 publicly being offers concluding enjoy First, suffering "[p]ublic suspicion," ante, 311, formal accusation. Second, restraints" liberty. rationales flawed. 37 (1971), either asserts probable believe committed Before individual, possibly aware accusation,"id., 321, 464, comes Due Process applicable statute limitations. applied rationale military murder Army officer, dropped investigation. honorable discharge, civilian nearly four later murders. implicate acting good faith, formally drops 1501. reasoned termination prosecution, investigation," id., 1502, thus "accused" Marion arrest. 38 case.2 Unlike arrested, dropped, limitations prosecuted aspect prearrest cognizable 322-323, 464-465. More importantly, contrast "dropped" anything case.3 relevant times captioned Hawk —I can think indication Government. 39 [respondents] record," constituted suspicion" call into play, citing MacDonald. Ante, 311. "accusation," yet formalized commitment. Indeed, "concluded untrue," 1503, acknowledging mistake extinguishing probable-cause determination. made confession continues align full resources proceedings. 40 telling difference taken One primary purposes prolonged 1502; 2193, vital part holding. contrast, declared explicitly, 3731, person shall awaiting trial.4 Thus undoubted authority condition release posting indeed keep jail throughout 3142(e) (1982 ed., Supp. III). accompanied travel, association, employment, abode, possession, reporting regularly officers and/or keeping curfew. 3142(c). Considering circumstances, therefore, closely analogous indicted. 41 postarrest, concedes forced post bond automatic apply. Yet, inexplicably, suggests 'actual restraints,' 310, quoting 463 added opinion). completely misreads creating flatly inconsistent holdings. 42 disturb settled institution charges, always calls play. 316-319, 462-463; Gouveia, 467 180, 185-186, 104 2292, 2296, 81 146 (1984). specified detention possible deleterious charge, nowhere suggested themselves, cause, hold less constitutional significance bail. 12. identifies logic precedent supporting novel conclusion "accused," evidence, "accused."5 rejected precisely adopts. Dillingham States, 64, 96 303, 205 (1975) (per curiam ), require prejudice" invoke Such included requires. bond, restrictions, "any increased strain man's followed rise level prejudice." Palmer, 502 1233, 1237 1974), rev'd sub nom. summarily rationale, whatsoever resurrecting today.6 44 3141(a) III) entitled, Because hypothetical defendant, am understand why protection. 45 declines accountable doing emphasizes 2191. "[t]here part," accord "effective factor balance. 316. conclusion, virtually obvious "reason delay" case—the unable decide reasonably prompt manner. explained follows: 47 "[D]ifferent reasons. deliberate weighted government. neutral negligence overcrowded ultimate circumstances rest government 2192 48 makes misconduct virtual prerequisite violation. Seizing approach Courts Appeals,7 analyzes behind terms government's behavior taking prosecuting policies right. fairness society's providing swift justice. 519, 2186. prosecutors necessarily work promote vitality. whole—including courts—that prosecutor's suffice discharge responsibility.8 frankly admitted "most processes court," 1184, 1191 escape. involves rulings. know ruled expeditiously possible. 20. Yet took five "expedited." No complicated analysis needed identify 50 simply, nonfrivolous party permits complexity issues parties, permit greater lesser government, suffer consequences courts," level.9 amount patently unreasonable. 51 misapplied excludable Its Wingo undercuts respectfully dissent. reads: "In prosecutions, ." stringent provisions Act, 3161 seq., mooted litigation about requirements prosecutions. devoted automatically §§ 3161(d)(2) (h)(1)(E). relief James action, active American Indian Movement, fugitive events occurred. seige occupation Wounded Knee place 60 before, Investigation tracking fugitives affair. 1141 description battle resultant violence death, 389 (SD dism'd, 513 1329 (CA8 1975); 374 321 1974); 368 1245 1973). represents introduce driver vehicles. apprehended still dispute characterization Brief Opposition 4; 5. wrote: "Each boxes marked 'High Explosives Dangerous' side markings: '50 lbs Gelex x 70% Strength D73MAO 7B' "together logo DuPont company prominently displayed. Inside red cylindrical sticks wrapping paper covering contents marked: 'Explosives Dangerous E Dupont De Nemours & Co. (Inc.).' 1144-1145. follow practice opinions discussing refer 1187 1984); 1143. 841, 843 1982) ("explosive material"). 40a-42a, 90a. postponed motion. objection 18, Record, Doc. Nos. 62, 64. permitted pursue 3731. section effect read: lie judgment, information except double jeopardy clause prohibits "An [sic ] suppressing excluding requiring seized property proceeding, put verdict information, attorney certifies proof material proceeding. within thirty rendered diligently prosecuted. "Pending determination foregoing instances, accordance chapter 207 title. liberally construed effectuate purposes." 57. new recharged (although substituted "receiving" "transporting") slightly type device. receiving felony. listing entries, 38-145, shows 4-week included: transcript recently (June 24, 1980), 61; allegations (July 63; photographic identification "Tainted Potential Courtroom Identification," ibid.; change selection procedure, composition, disclosure production 64; appointment investigator gross governmental misconduct, ibid. All Banks' (Aug. 1980). 65-66. Circuit's conflicts Circuits. 1978); Jackson, 508 1001, 1004 (CA7 Bishton, U.S.App.D.C. 51, 54, 887, 890 instances using outlined below. Infra, Homer, Odyssey, Book II, lines 91-105 (R. Lattimore trans. 1965). provides pertinent part: instructive respect another right—the counsel. Surely "critical stage" implicating Evitts Lucey, 469 387, 830, 83 821 (1985) (defendant due assistance appointed). critical stages, needs "as 'haled court' stripped presumption innocence." Ross Moffitt, 417 600, 610-611, 94 2437, 2443-2444, 341 (1974). Again, striking. dropping charges; (1984), satisfied narrower defies former, latter, recognizing fundamental 48. Subdivision leave court, thereupon terminate." contains language suggesting brings end—nor it, Asking "exists" interesting standpoint ontology, practical help. significant go back reindictment. When dismisses reinstate stroke pen. Title title." Chapter 207, 3141-3156, procedures release, impose various Tr. Oral Arg. 18. worth noting Act puts limits beginning [the defendant] summons," 3161, regard release. "provides [speedy trial] right," Pollard 352 354, 361, 77 481, 486, 393 (1957); 319, 462, states: "If unnecessary presenting complaint." confers conditions. Apparently relying $1,500 1234, reads proposition restriction, insignificant, invokes outstanding. 19. Once again, plain peculiar standard. comparable constitutes symmetry bond. Simply put, advanced lacks internal consistency. sensible reading restraints, like types balance, prerequisites 533, Saintil, 705 415 (CA11 1983); 1139 1978). assumes, wants hindering one. assumption open points strategically timed demands ring somewhat hollow overall litigation. Were accept factor. unable, agree focus prosecution's, court's, contribution undoubtedly reluctance tell privilege decline obligations. better advised resolution force uncomfortable indictments

Category: 0