Court Opinion

ID: 9424266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:11:03.227393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:49.270455
License: Public Domain

Me. Justice Harlan,
concurring.
I join the Court's opinion with the following reservation and comment.
I think that claims such as those of the petitioner in this case, arising out of a state proceeding, should be *39judged by the principles of procedural fairness required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and not by “incorporating” or “absorbing” into the Fourteenth Amendment the “speedy trial” provision of the Sixth Amendment. See my concurring opinion in Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U. S. 213, 226 (1967), and my separate opinion in Smith v. Hooey, 393 U. S. 374, 383 (1969). This reservation reflects the hope that some day the Court will return to adjudicating state criminal cases in accordance with the historic meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, see, e. g., my dissenting opinion in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 171 (1968).
However, whether it be the Due Process Clause or the Sixth Amendment that is deemed to apply, I fully agree that petitioner’s federal constitutional rights were violated by Florida’s actions in this instance.