Legal Document

393 U.S. 374 89 Supreme Court Reporter 575 21 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 607 Richard M. SMITH, Petitioner,v.Fred HOOEY, Judge, Criminal District of Harris County, Texas. Number 198. Argued Dec. 11, 1968. Decided Jan. 20, 1969. Charles Alan Wright, Austin, Tex., for petitioner. Joe S. Moss, Houston, respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion Court. 1 In Klopfer versus North Carolina, 386 213, 87 988, 18 1, this held that, by virtue Fourteenth Amendment, Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial1 is enforceable against as 'one most basic rights preserved our Constitution.' Id., at 226, 995. The case before us involves nature and extent obligation imposed upon State that constitutional guarantee, when person under state criminal charge serving prison sentence another jurisdiction. 2 1960 petitioner was indicted in Texas, theft. He then, still is, prisoner federal penitentiary Leavenworth, Kansas.2 Shortly after filed him, petition r mailed letter Texas trial court requesting trial. reply, he notified 'he would be afforded within two weeks any date (he) might specify which could present.'3 Thereafter, next six years, petitioner, 'by various letters, more formal so-called 'motions," continued periodically ask brought Beyond response already alluded to, took no steps obtain petitioner's appearance County court. Finally, 1967, verified motion dismiss him want prosecution. No action taken on motion. 3 then mandamus proceeding asking an order show cause why pending should not dismissed. Mandamus refused informal unreported sought certiorari After inviting receiving memorandum from Solicitor General Sates, 390 937, 88 1057, 19 1127, we granted consider questions presents. 392 925, 2288, 20 1384. 4 refusing issue writ mandamus, relied reaffirmed its decision year earlier Cooper State, 400 South Western Reporter, 2nd 890.4 case, present one, man who inmate prison. habeas corpus ad prosequendum court, praying trial, or Upon denial motion, applied mandamus. denying application, acknowledged have been clearly entitled relief matter right,5 but 'a different rule applicable separate sovereignties are involved.' S.W.2d, 891. viewed difference power authority.' 892. While acknowledging if authorities were 'ordered proceed with prosecution * comply certain conditions specified authorities, relator produced court,' id., 891, it nonetheless denied because thought '(t)he true test authority unaided waiver, permission act grace other Four Justices dissented, expressing their belief 'where has afford accused duty do so.' 893. 5 There can doubt had large six-year period following his indictment, repeatedly demanded try him. supra, U.S., 219, S.Ct., 991. And concedes during confined some offense, less. But fact, prison, totally absolved all guarantee. We cannot agree. 6 historic origins traced detail Chief Klopfer, 223-226, 993—995, need review history again here. Suffice remember guarantee universally6 essential protect least three demands justice Anglo-American legal system: '(1) prevent undue oppressive incarceration prior (2) minimize anxiety concern accompanying public accusation (3) limit possiblities long delay will impair ability defend himself.' Ewell, 383 116, 120, 86 773, 776, 15 627. These both aggravated compounded imprisoned 7 At first blush appear lawful hardly position suffer 'undue trial.' fact bringing such may ultimately result much oppression suffered one jailed without bail untried charge. First, possibility defendant receive partially concurrent forever lost postponed.7 Secondly, procedures now widely practiced, duration imprisonment increased, must serve greatly worsened, pendency outstanding him.8 8 while argued less likely than others affected 'anxiety accusation,' there reason believe (of even convict may, course, innocent) fully depressive effect large. Cf. 221—222, 992—993. former Director Federal Bureau Prisons, 9 '(I)t attempts rehabilitate detainers corrosive. strain having uncertain prospect being into custody conclusion interferes prisoner's take maximum advantage institutional opportunities. His depression leave little inclination toward self-improvement.'9 10 self-evident 'the possibilities himself' markedly increased incarcerated Confined perhaps far place where offense covered allegedly place, confer potential defense witnesses, keep track whereabouts, obviously impaired. And, 'evidence witnesses disappear, memories fade, events lose perspective,'10 isolated powerless exert own investigative efforts mitigate these erosive effects passage time. 11 Despite considerations, said attempt bring question way dependent how what manner sovereignty discretionary doctrine comity.'11 Yet did make effort secure appearance, would, 'be court.'12 This confirmed case: 12 '(T)he Prisons doubtless made available issued It does appear, however, point initiate procedure case.'13 13 view realities, think mistaken allowing doctrinaire concepts 'power' 'authority' submerge practical Indeed, rationale based wholly undercut last Term Barder Page, 719, 1318, 255. dealt guarantee—the confrontation. holding Oklahoma excuse failure produce witness simply outside said: 14 'We start absolutely presence Woods ascertain Oklahoma. courts commentators heretofore assumed mere absence jurisdiction sufficient ground dispensing confrontation theory 'it impossible compel attendance, process force jurisdiction, party desiring testimony therefore helpless.' Wigmore, Evidence § 1404 (3d ed. 1940). 'Whatever accuracy time, clear time cooperation between themselves Government largely deprived continuing validity law. 16 '* Appeals majority appears reasoned request exercise discretion part request. Judge Aldrich, sitting designation, pointed out dissent below, refusal equivalent rebuff.' (Barber Cir.) 381 (479) 481. short, 'unavailable' purposes o foregoing exception requirement unless prosecutorial goodfaith here, and, so record reveals, sole testify seek presence. dispensed lightly.' 723—725, 1321 (footnotes omitted). 17 By parity reasoning hold today lightly either. demand, diligent, good-faith set aside, remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. ordered. Order aside BLACK concurs judgment Court, concerned only purpose giving given 22 WHITE, concurring. 23 & N Immigration Nationality Decisions join understanding remand 'for opinion' open ultimate whether court's erroneous reliance elsewhere prevented reaching facets question, adjudicated permitted procedure. 24 Separate HARLAN. 25 agree ignore accused's merely reasonable required Due Process Clause rest 'incorporation' Amendment's speedy-trial provision Fourteenth. See my concurring 995, (1967). 26 believe, however explicitness expected conveyed 'inconsistent opinion.' Must charges dismissed? Or him? If contends prejudiced nine-year delay, claim adjudicated? 27 impression us, decides lower divided. Under particular circumstances, automatically forfeit desires forthwith. makes prima facie showing State's shift burden proving contrary. 'In prosecutions, shall enjoy *.' U.S.Const. Amdt. VI. On May 5, 1960, sheriff warden Leavenworth warrant arrest outstanding, asked notice minimum release date.' That apparently January 6, 1970. Most facts stipulated. also Lawrence 412 40. For proposition cited 40-year-old Moreau Bond, 114 Tex. 468, 271 Southwestern KF135 S79 379. 'Those rights, fundamental nature, guaranteed Bill Rights subject judicial discretion. Judicial personal discretion; exercised conformity Constitution laws land. positive law fixed judge decide expediency equity. Rights, Section Article Constitution, provides: prosecutions impartial jury. *' 'None reasons suggested, either overruling relator's answer good foundation justice. Certainly, laws, him.' 470, S.W., 379—380. basis thus contained constitution. 'Today, each 50 guarantees citizens.' 995; see Note, Right Speedy Trial, 57 Col.L.Rev. 846, 847 (1957); cf. Lagging 51 Va.L.Rev. 1587 (1965). Schindler, Interjurisdictional Conflict 35 U.Cin.L.Rev. 179, 182—183 (1966). See, e.g., Evans Mitchell, 200 Kan. 290, 436 Pacific 408 (holding Kansas 15-year Washington although clemency conditional pardon rehabilitation programs become trusty prison). existence longer ineligible parole system. 28 Code Regulations 2.9 (1968); Rules Board Parole 17—18 late 1959 wrote: 'Today prisoners evaluated individually remains tendency them escape risks assign accordingly. many instances evaluation correct, detainer aggravate potentiality prisoner.' Bennett, 'The Updated: Full Ounce,' Fed.Prob. 2, Page (1959). Detainers Correctional Process, 1966 Wash. U.L.Q. 417, 418—423. n. 8, 21; Walther, Detainer Warrants Trial Provision, 46 Marq.L.Rev. 423, 427 428 (1963). Effective Guaranty Convicts Other Jurisdictions, 77 YaleL.J. 767, 769 (1968). 890, suggested expense involved noting directive provided 'satisfactory arrangements payment expenses (must be) actually removed effectuating occasional comparable implement appointment counsel every indigent defendant. Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 83 792, 799. custodial well transportation incurred run. maintains, indigent, nothing fair assessment necessary short d best objection Wisconsin like one: put price tag rights.' ex rel. Fredenberg Byrne, Wis.2d 504, 512, 123 305, 310. states: 'It policy encourage expeditious disposition prisoners. normal production effected pursuant Almost invariably, complied writs extended authorities. informs removals normally marshals, borne instances, cost facility close site relatively small number KF62 4085, provides part: "Whenever indicted, informed against, convicted felony Columbia, Attorney shall, finds interest so, Governor executive thereof, presentation certified copy information conviction, person, release, transferred penal correctional institution District."

Classification Label: 0