Court Opinion

ID: 9548600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:05:58.376453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:11.385415
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Groves
dissenting:
None of the continuances, commencing with the one on January 16, 1964, were obtained on the motion of the defendant; rather, they were obtained over his objection. For the court to permit delays in the trial from January 16, 1964, until November 9, 1965 — after there had been earlier continuances for a year — does not meet with my concept of being “consistent with the court’s business.” Although the court did have a backlog, it still had a duty to give this defendant a speedier trial; and failing to do so, in my opinion, was inconsistent with the proper conduct of the court’s business.
Mr. Justice Day joins in this dissent.