Legal Document

398 U.S. 30 90 Supreme Court Reporter 1564 26 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 Robert Dean DICKEY, Petitioner,v.State of FLORIDA. Number 728. Argued Jan. 21, 1970. Decided May 25, John D. Buchanan, Jr., Tallahassee, Fla., for petitioner. George R. Georgieff, respondent. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered the opinion Court. 1 We granted writ in this case to consider petitioner's claim that he had been denied his Sixth Amendment right a speedy trial: was tried 1968 on charges alleged criminal acts committed 1960. 2 Prior commencement jury trial armed robbery petitioner, Dickey, moved quash information against him, alleging, inter alia, if were would be trial, as guaranteed by § 11 Declaration Rights Florida Constitution, F.S.A.1 and Constitution.2 The motion denied. Dickey subsequently convicted. He appealed District Appeal, First District, alleging error court's denial quash. Appeal affirmed conviction brief order. 215 So.2d 772 (1968). leave proceed forma pauperis petition certiorari. 396 816, 109, 24 68 (1969). reverse. 3 * At about o'clock morning June 28, 1960, Clark's Motor Quincy, Gadsden County, Florida, robbed lone robber. victim only eyewitness Mrs. Ralph Clark. She immediately reported crime Deputy County Sheriff Martin gave description robber him; routinely recorded later reference. Shortly thereafter, taken into custody federal bank placed Jackson Jail, Marianna, Florida. Apparently Clark given sufficiently similar July 1, showed picture Dickey. then went Jail where she identified her assailant. Later day secured an arrest warrant charging with robbery.3 4 From September 2, remained Jail. Sheriff's Office knew whereabouts but made no effort serve or gain purpose trial. On having convicted charges, removed from first Leavenworth Alcatraz. same day, sent Marshal, Atlanta, Georgia, formal detainer lodged 5 In 1962 filed Circuit styled 'writ habeas corpus ad prosequendum' naming State Attorney respondent asking required show cause why should not ordered either take steps necessary obtain Dickey's presence withdraw failure provide Amendment. Court, order dated December 1962, several grounds: first, unavailability result voluntary commission crime, natural consequence which incarceration penal institution; second, speedy-trial issue prematurely raised because at time can determination whether delay has fair impossible; third, even immediate violative rights, it deprivation caused wholly officials person, any relief flow those authorities. 6 papers raising substantially contentions two occasions, April 1963, March 1966. both petitions, simply citing prior 1962. 7 next petitioned mandamus ordering secure return him. judge orders Thereafter General opposition arguing heard complain received acts. Counsel appointed argument mandamus. 8 rejected State's person incarcerated one demand constitutionally another charge. versus 200 521 (1967). court held does make accused unavailable since there have long means jurisdiction, prisoner another. That also prisoner's upon accusing gives rise obligation act affirmatively trial; promptly defendant detaining sovereign might invalidate judgment ultimately obtained, lapse is great excused.4 concluded once discretionary decision charge made, arises diligently toward procuring ministerial duty subject However, named respondent, rather than appropriate Attorney, dismissed without prejudice file 9 1967, dismiss prosequendum 15, issued writ, allegedly returned January 23, 1968. 30, before begin, counsel continuance so witnesses could determined, quashed ground over seven years amounted prejudicial impossible.5 took under advisement. set February 13. 10 continuance, 12, stating located more needed.6 and, testified memory deputy after stated recall seen night crime. concerning identification jail, noting jailer who present when viewed died. further admitting hazy notes while investigating destroyed. 12 record indicates defense consisted Waycross, testimony witness visited victimized motel times. latter evidence argued unlikelihood commit place known recognized. 13 sentenced years' imprisonment Penitentiary, sentence run consecutively term serving. sought review erred granting opinion, saying 'appellant failed demonstrate reversible *.' 772, 773. II 14 shows petitioner available all times during seven-year period suggests tenable reason deferring face diligent repeated efforts motions state 1966 prompt interval died potential become unavailable. Police records possible relevance lost 15 argues Federal Constitution did arise until Court's Klopfer North Carolina, 386 213, 87 988, 18 (1967), Smith Hooey, 393 374, 89 575, 21 607 (1969), constitutional requirement press jurisdiction. 16 As noted holding 17 'the Fourteenth Amendment, (applying) enforceable 'one most basic rights preserved our Constitution." U.S., 374—375, 575. hold good-faith custodial jurisdiction afford him we remanded deciding defendant, court, arising delay. 19 Here brought back tried, Petitioner's challenge directly power try almost eight repeatedly demanded 20 theoretical abstract rooted hard reality need exposed. If prosecution calls meet rest infirmities prosecution's case, defendant's right, them fresh. claims never favored law, far less cases.7 Although many persons seek put off confrontation possible, inquiry fundamental authority trial.8 This sharply focus when, here, presses early accusers State. Crowded dockets, lack judges lawyers, other factors doubt some delays inevitable. Here, however, valid existed; exclusively convenience its consequent intolerable matter fact impermissible law. addition exerting every require abundant actual death witnesses, another, loss police records. sufficient remand unnecessary.9 therefore reverse directions vacate direct dismissal proceedings out based. 22 Reversed directions. 23 HARLAN, concurring. & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions join following reservation comment. 25 think such proceeding, judged principles procedural fairness Due Process Clause 'incorporating' 'absorbing' 'speedy trial' provision See my concurring 226, 995, separate 383, 579, reflects hope will adjudicating cases accordance historic meaning see, e.g., dissenting Duncan Louisiana, 391 145, 171, 88 1444, 1458, 491 deemed apply, fully agree violated Florida's actions instance. 27 BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, 28 standards governing are obligatory Clause. prosecution, began nearly Klopfer. Accordingly, assuming, arguendo, retroactive, question here unconstitutionally delayed test due process applicable See, Beasley Pitchess, 358 Reporter, 2nd 706 (C.A.9th Cir. 1966); ex rel. Von Cseh Fay, 313 620 (C.A.2d 1963); Germany Hudspeth, 209 18—19 (C.A.10th 1954).1 Petitioner established claim. 1960 robbery, 1968; 1962; shown prejudiced delay; State, appears, deliberately slow prosecuting Thus, opinion. 29 do read post-Klopfer (1) occurring arrest; (2) entitled unless demands (3) must prove prejudice, (4) government. It timely note yet scant attention these questions essential definition guarantee. Before Klopfer, three opinions dealt length each decided little analysis scope content. Beavers Haubert, 198 77, 573, 49 L.Ed. 950 (1905); Pollard States, 352 354, 77 481, (1957); Ewell, 383 116, 86 773, 627 (1966). itself attempted extensive analysis; nor decision, And today effect application Speedy Trial States. although said Constitution,' S.Ct., guarantee 'as Amendment,' id., 223, 993, trace contours. point certain major problems courts defining view, groups issues met interpreting right: concerned attaches, criteria constitutionality attach. These questions, course, answered light purposes Clause.2 evils directed readily identified. intended spare penalties disabilities—incompatible presumption innocence—that may spring process. recognized supra, 120, 776, 'is important safeguard prevent undue oppressive trial.' Ewell 'to minimize anxiety concern accompanying public accusation.' Ibid. observed 222, lengthy 'public scorn deprive employment, certainly force curtailment speech, associations participation unpopular causes.' 31 disabilities, singly league, impair accused's ability mount defense. passage itself, moreover, dangerously reduce capacity counter charges. Witnesses physical lost; unable available. His own memories fade. Some defenses, insanity, likely difficult sustain; stated, '(p)assage makes proof difficult. When subtle mental state, difficulty immeasurably enhanced.' Williams 102 U.S.App.D.C. 51, 55, 250 19, (1957). 776. 32 protects societal interests, well accused. effective cases, restrain guilty deter contemplating it. Just defend himself, government case. Ponzi Fessenden, 258 254, 264, 42 309, 312, 66 (1922). Moreover, awaiting large fugitive justice greater between offense offender, deterrent value conviction.3 33 Deliberate governmental obtaining advantage unknown. circumstance, administration imperiled. serves interest penalizing official abuse discouraging lawlessness. Provoo, F.R.D. 183 (D.C.Md.), aff'd per curiam, 350 857, 76 101, 100 761 (1955). Thus common prosecute, persecute, accuses III 34 Against background safeguard, turn attaches. A stages, occur them. beginning process: decides prosecute man indictment.4 Or occur, instance, indictment,5 sentencing. 35 Authorities indictment Lucas 363 500, 502 1966), substantial attaches arrest, Hardy 119 364, 365, 343 233, 234 (1964). But Reece 337 852 (C.A.5th 1964). Similarly, generally applies intervals indictments trials charge, supra. assumed, decided, sentencing governed clause, 361, 485; see Welsh 348 885 (C.A.6th 1965). found dealing With exceptions,6 apply indictment, Parker 252 680, 681 1958); Terlikowski 379 501, 503—504 (C.A.8th 1967). 36 Does sentencing? view support wording Consitution says 'accused' '(i)n prosecutions.' Can becomes indicted, subdivides 'prosecution' various withholding others? related contexts involving clauses begin indictment; example, Escobedo Illinois, 378 478, 490, 84 1758, 1765, 977 (1964), spoke 'investigation longer general unsolved begun particular suspect.' regards realization Clause, possibility harm interests protected clause whenever occurs arrest.7 37 applicability poses question. few reasoned language precludes then,8 threatened. suffers preconviction penalty, freedom impaired conditioned release. none personal social disabilities accusation. And, society's concerned, government's part guilt beyond reasonable doubt.9 38 designed accused, constitutes lessens obtained. very probably reduces himself; unlike remain unaware pending thus fail defense.10 threatened indictment. realized, indictment.11 39 lower statute limitations provides exclusive control E.g., Panczko, 367 737, 739 (C.A.7th bringing 'limited limitations.' 122, 777, usually considered primary overly stale charges.' Such legislative judgments clearly weight determining what unreasonable crimes limitations. None exists, prosecutions capital offenses, Code KF62 3281. statute, limits change legislature, they necessarily co-extensive Judge Wright, Nickens 116 338, n. 4, 323 808, 813 (1963), observed: 'The legislature free implement (speedy-trial) protections right. minimum command whatever terms statute.' Cf. Nickens, 340 F.2d, 810 2. IV 40 What used judging applies? '(t)he relative. consistent depends circumstances. secures defendant. preclude justice.' 87, 576. '(w)hile administered dispatch, ingredient orderly expedition mere speed.' 360 10, 79 991, 997, 1041 (1959). appears consideration least reasonableness delay: source delay, reasons it, Clause.12 41 disentitled has, shares, responsibility. held, cannot sustain results being justice, making dilatory pleadings motions, failing object government,13 occasioned incompetence stand Davis, 365 251, 255 1966). failure, confronted justifies claim.14 words, silence—or inaction construed implied relinquishment Lustman, 475, 478 1958).15 loses silence open grounds. First, rests unrealistic understanding One explaining 'demand' rule based universal experience welcomed defendants operation their favor.' 620, 623 1963). true especially greatly fears consequences Chase, 135 F.Supp. 230, 233 (D.C.N.D.Ill.1955). just easily prolongation live uncertainty, carrying emotional financial burdens accusation, possessing felon. threaten prepare complete case; regard, inherently benefit prosecution. 43 Second, equation inaction, waiver fiction categorically stake. Over ago Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 464, 58 1019, 1023, 82 1461 (1938), defined 'waiver' 'an intentional abandonment privilege,' clear 'indulge waiver,' Aetna insurance company Kennedy use Bogash, 301 389, 393, 57 809, 812, 81 1177 (1937), 'not presume acquiescence rights.' Ohio Bell Tel. Public Utilities Comm'n, 292, 307, 724, 731, 1093 (1937). Amendment.' community whole. affirmative action preserve—rather waive—the right? 44 Third, implication misallocates burden ensuring bring presumed innocent proved guilty; arguably, wish exercise quickly, accepts government, hand, seem responsibility get protect Weinfeld Southern New York observed, 'I conceive prosecuted penalty waiving fails so. prosecutor, charged observe mandate guaranteeing prosecutor so, waived Dillon, 541, 543 (1960).16 45 always authority. whose conduct Clause; covers personnel well, supra; Marshal 83, responsible associated law enforcement agencies courts. Delay, refusal branches judiciary resources trials. King 105 193, 195, 265 567, 569 46 reasonable? Clearly, deliberate attempt 'purposeful oppressive,' unjustifiable. 485. unnecessary, negligent origin.17 ensure virtually damaging failure; negligence cause, unaffected misuse officials. crucial legitimacy reasonably avoided—whether unnecessary. To determine necessity consider, intrinsic importance other, safeguard. For trivial objective, avoided. realizing suspect. Perhaps permit delayed. surely objective justify interminable interruption prosecution.18 47 Finally, role determinations? discharge drastic step, justifiable unlikely ended unnecessarily, agreement below, divided conclusions regarding prejudice. 'we showing asserting 477—478 1958). assumed delays, Hedgepeth 124 291, 294 3, 364 684, 687 Others insisted existence Jackson, 369 936, 939 (C.A.4th though shifted 21—22 (C.A.D.C. 1957). 48 seems element violations, follow prejudice—or absence, government—can satisfactorily cases. Certainly, indicates, instances. obvious, imprisoned bad faith. concrete often hand. Even documents, present, now unavailable, proving materiality borders impossible measure cost dimmed parties witnesses. Ross 121 238, 349 210, (1965): '(The defendant's) inability reconstruct remember precluded respects successful shorter. real sense, extent Government's evidenced encountered establishing particularity elements prejudice.' chance conclusively sustained commentator '(t)here way outside courtroom suspicion, servering family ties, anxiety.' Note, Right Criminal Trial, Col.L.Rev. 864. Nor, ready Despite difficulties proving, disproving, inherent prosecutorial 'potential prejudice,' Wade, 388 218, 227, 1926, 1932, 1149 premised unfairness overlong prosecutions. limit possibilities himself,' Frankel 'prejudice fairly everyone knows fade, lost, increases passing months years.' Mann, 291 268, 271 50 Within context counsel, confrontation, impartial jury, knowledge district committed, compulsory process.19 Because inheres safeguards, remedy. Prejudice issue, rule, wishes argue harmless error. Chapman California, 18, 824, 705 stake, equally realistic assume rapid 51 approach, lies how assumed. generalized developed indicate course probability Until exceeds point, actually harmed. Once, cease wished error.20 Though temporal standard govern prosecutions, account types diverge norm.21 52 prima facie arose avoided Arguably shift establish, lost.22 determining, grounds then, each. grounds, value; legitimate different weights, locate minor justificatory hinges. V 53 comments definitive answers. many—if most—of resolved. Arguments soon arguments exist lose unjustifiable, ceases raise Insofar meritorious, suggest receive hospitable interpretation accorded. Rights, reads pertinent part: Section 11. accused; etc.— 'In shall county enjoy Under step tolled Rosengarten 171 591 (Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1965); Dubbs Lehman, Fla. 799, 130 KF135 S69 (1930); Emanuel, 153 839 (Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1963). Constitution's through Amendment's treated guarantees substantively coterminous. 521, 524, 526—527. material witness, Hazel Varnadore, sister, 1964. called 12:15 Georgia. accompanied affidavit effect, signed asserted Atlantic C. Strickland. expected testify date located. American Bar Association Project Standards Justice, 4.1 (Approved Draft 1968). Prosecution Function Defense 2.9 (Tent.Draft Mar. 1970). Regina Robins, Cox Crim.Cas. 114 (Somerset Winter Assizes, 1844). re Oliver, 333 257, 499, 92 682 (1948), where, reliance violates denying links adjudication, phrase 'a Records intent Framers sparse. There is, Senate debate, House deliberations give indication Representatives' intent. Stan.L.Rev. 476, 484—485 Nonetheless, among fairness. principal insignificant: came Representative lest opportunity Annals Cong. 756; KF105 F3 Heller, (1951). understood valued common-law antecedents. historical discussion 223—226, 993—995. 10—11 1968); Solomon Mancusi, 412 88, 93 1969) (Feinberg, J., dissenting). Delay appellate collateral proceedings. situations here. By 'indictment' refer information, analogous procedure. Mann 113 27, 394, 396—397, (1962); Reed, 285 738, 740 (D.C.D.C.1968); cf. Sanchez 341 225, 228 occurs, suffer prolonged stock continues spent. himself undermined. begun, completed, defending deterioration testimony, preparation previously time. lessened distance offense. deliberate, strikes People Jordan, Cal.2d 697, 708, 290 Pacific 484, Again, say move variety reasons, stengthen document remains unaware, deny evidence. threat coerce assisting operations becoming lacks quickly negligently act. strengthen guilt. much position outstanding protection Fouts 253 215, 218 mean broad discretion insufficient worthwhile evidence; moderate operations, completion undercover work number suspects, compatible whether, arrested distinct compel Four factors—length trial—are mentioned determinants reasonableness. Simmons, 338 804, 807 Cir.1964). significant principally affects likelihood effects, relevant primarily cited Lagging Va.L.Rev. 1587, 1598—1599 (1965). rejection inaction. Va.L.Rev., 13, 1604 87. elaboration 846, 852—855 1601—1609. event, takes end. striking instance fact. aside, bear going forward alone ultimate burden, fall initiating party Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 41(b) (dismissal plaintiff). Hanrahan 134, 139, 363, 368 (1965); 741 (D.C.D.C.1968). Crim.Proc. 48(b) 'unnecessary' (1959), '(C)ases turn. consideration; others calendar stack up. time, too heed practicalities encroach individual's rights. refuse install judicial machinery perform tasks, loose.' Stan.L.Rev., 494—495. indicated 'there (such assistance trial) infraction error.' Chapman, 827. length. average consists opposed documentary 499—500. appropriately know place. Courts Schlinsky 735, 737 (C.A.1st

Classification Label: 0