Court Opinion

ID: 9687269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:20:56.702421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:25.216217
License: Public Domain

T. E. Brennan, J.
(dissenting). I dissent for the reasons given in the majority opinion. In particular, I adopt the following clear, concise and accurate statement of the law:
"The conclusion is inescapable that, in the absence of a clear statutory provision for a preliminary examination following presentment or an indictment by a grand jury, there has never been such a right.”
Once again, the Court chooses to legislate by court rule, even where it concedes that a statutory provision is necessary.
Chief Justice Burger has proposed at the Federal level that the Congress prepare an "impact statement,” outlining the effect of new rights upon the court system. If this Court persists in legislating, we ought to have the courtesy to adopt an "impact statement,” setting forth the effect of our actions upon the public treasury.
Black, J., did not sit in this case.