Court Opinion

ID: 9691128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:13:05.296681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:11.329801
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
Since appellant’s judgment of conviction in the lower court and his appeal therefrom to this Court on August 14, 1970, the United States Supreme Court has rendered Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101, wherein a defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial on a criminal charge is broadly treated and discussed. The pronouncements therein have application to the issue of a speedy trial present in the instant case. Barker v. Wingo, supra, should be considered along with United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 92 S.Ct. 455, 30 L.Ed.2d 468, decided December 20, 1971, in determining application of the speedy trial provision of Amendment 6 to the Constitution of the United States. Amendment 6 is imposed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment on the States. Barker *348v. Wingo, supra, and cases cited. Amendment 6 applies to the instant case.
Barker v. Wingo, supra, impresses certain guidelines for judicial use in determining the deprivation vel non of a defendant’s right to a speedy trial. The trial court on remandment as herein ordered will vacate the order overruling defendant’s motion to dismiss the prosecution. It will also permit further pleadings by the parties, if desired, to present fully the issue vel non of such alleged deprivation.
The court will try the issues raised by the pleadings without the aid of a jury to determine whether defendant has been deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial in violation of Amendment 6 to the Constitution of the United States.
The trial court will follow the United States Supreme Court’s pronouncements in Barker v. Wingo and United States v. Marion, supra, in the admission of evidence and in reaching a conclusion and ruling as ■hereinafter directed. Development of the issue may embrace a wide range of evidence, including the date of defendant’s first arrest on the charge for which he was subsequently indicted and convicted, and his whereabouts after the first arrest. All evidence should be admitted which falls within the factors of the Supreme Court cases, supra, and sheds any light on the issue. We will not here define the guidelines and the factors to be considered but we do point to the two cases, supra, as providing a beacon light for the trial court to follow.
The trial court is further instructed that this hearing be conducted as speedily as possible, that a full record be made thereof, together with the court’s conclusion from the evidence adduced, plus a ruling on the motion or pleadings which assert defendant’s contention that he did not have a speedy trial. A transcript of these proceedings, including the evidence, under the seal of the clerk, will be forwarded to this Court for review.
This Court at this time neither denies nor grants appellant’s motion for a rehearing but holds the same in status quo pending further hearing below and in this court of defendant’s contention that he has been denied a speedy trial.
The judgment in this cause is hereby remanded with directions.
Remanded with directions.
All the Judges concur.