Knowledge

Barker v. Wingo

Source 📝

397:
Barker's reason was his gambling on Manning's acquittal (the evidence against Manning not being strong as evidenced by two hung juries and two appellate court reversals), believing that if Manning was acquitted, he would never be tried (which Barker's counsel also conceded at oral argument). The Court further noted that, after Barker's counsel objected to the February 1962 continuance, he did not object to the June or September 1962 continuances; only in March 1963, after Manning's convictions became final, were objections raised to further continuances (this time brought about by the ex-sheriff's illness, which Barker conceded was a justifiable reason).
343:
lesser offense. The Court also noted that persons released on bond had the opportunity to commit further crimes, "the longer an accused is free awaiting trial, the more tempting becomes his opportunity to jump bail and escape", and that "delay between arrest and punishment may have a detrimental effect on rehabilitation." The Court also noted that if the accused cannot make bail, that too can make rehabilitation difficult, that a lengthy pre-trial detention can be costly, and that "society loses wages which might have been earned, and it must often support families of incarcerated breadwinners."
31: 275:
the 15th continuance (March 1963 on the date of Barker's trial; the prosecution sought a continuance due to illness of the former sheriff, the chief investigating officer in the case) as well as the 16th continuance (June 1963, requested for the sheriff's continued illness; while granting the continuance the Circuit Court ruled that the matter had to come to trial at the next term or would be dismissed for lack of prosecution).
478:
June 1961 (#10), September 1961 (#11), February 1962 (#12), June 1962 (#13), September 1962 (#14), March 1963 (at the beginning of the Court's term in February 1963, the prosecution moved to set the trial date for March 19 of that year, but when that date arrived the prosecution requested and was granted Continuance #15), and June 1963 (#16).
362:) was to "hold that the Constitution requires a criminal defendant to be offered a trial within a specified time period." The Court rejected this approach, stating that there was "no constitutional basis for holding that the speedy trial right can be quantified into a specified number of days or months." 589:
The Court also stated that some delay to secure Manning's testimony against Barker would have been permissible, "but more than four years was too long a period, particularly since a good part of that period was attributable to the Commonwealth's failure or inability to try Manning under circumstances
342:
First, the Court noted that "there is a societal interest in providing a speedy trial which exists separate from, and at times in opposition to, the interests of the accused". The Court commented on the backlog of cases, mainly in urban courts, that often enable defendants to negotiate a plea for a
274:
Barker, through his counsel, did not object to any of the first eleven continuances. But on the 12th continuance (February 1962) Barker's counsel filed a motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds, which was rejected. Barker's counsel did not object to the 13th or 14th continuances, but objected to
467:
trials before Manning was convicted of both murders. The first and fourth trials ended in a hung jury. The second trial resulted in a conviction but was overturned on grounds of illegally obtained evidence. The third trial also resulted in a conviction but was overturned on grounds of failure to
365:
The other approach was to "restrict consideration of the right to those cases in which the accused has demanded a speedy trial." In other words, if the defendant did not specifically demand a trial, the defendant waived his/her right to appeal the matter. The Court also rejected this approach, as
346:
Second, the Court noted that "deprivation of the right may work to the accused's advantage." As the time between arrest and trial lengthens, witnesses may become unavailable and/or their memories fade; if the witnesses were for the prosecution the case may be seriously weakened (as the prosecution
317:
affirmed the District Court's decision in 1971. The Sixth Circuit argued that Barker had waived any speedy trial claims up through February 1963 (which the Sixth Circuit erroneously believed was the first date that Barker's counsel objected to a further continuance) and that the eight-month period
396:
However, the Court also ruled that Barker was not prejudiced by the delay, since none of Barker's witnesses were harmed by the delay. More importantly, the Court determined that Barker did not want a speedy trial (a fact that Barker's counsel conceded at oral argument). The Court speculated that
477:
Continuances were granted in the Barker case in October 1958 (#1), February 1959 (#2, in an exception to the pattern this continuance was granted for one month only), March 1959 (#3), June 1959 (#4), September 1959 (#5), February 1960 (#6), June 1960 (#7), September 1960 (#8), February 1961 (#9),
270:
The prosecution, however, encountered numerous difficulties in getting a conviction against Manning; it would not be until December 1962 that Manning would be convicted in the second of the two murders. As the Christian County Circuit Court only held three terms each year (in February, June, and
392:
Taking these factors into consideration, though, Barker's conviction was upheld. The court agreed that the period of time between initial arrest and trial – over five years – was "extraordinary" and that only seven months of the delay was justifiable (the period of the ex-sheriff's
266:
to not incriminate himself), the prosecution chose to try Manning first, hoping that once convicted, Manning would later voluntarily testify against Barker. At the outset of Manning's trial on October 23, 1958, the prosecution sought and obtained the first of what would be 16 continuances in
278:
The final trial date was set for October 9, 1963 and on that date, after Barker's counsel made another unsuccessful motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds, the trial was finally commenced; with Manning the chief prosecution witness, Barker was convicted and given a life sentence.
370:
the Court ruled that "resuming waiver from a silent record is impermissible. The record must show, or there must be an allegation and evidence which show, that an accused was offered counsel but intelligently and understandably rejected the offer. Anything less is not
514:
The Court specifically commented that "t must be of little comfort to the residents of Christian County, Kentucky, to know that Barker was at large on bail for over four years while accused of a vicious and brutal murder of which he was ultimately
318:
between February and October 1963 (the period between the objection and the actual trial) was not unduly long. Further, the Sixth Circuit ruled that granting a continuance based on the sheriff's illness was a justifiable reason for a delay.
350:
Finally, the Court noted that the concept is more vague than with other rights, in that the Court "cannot definitely say how long is too long in a system where justice is supposed to be swift but deliberate."
301: 247:. The Court held that determinations of whether or not the right to a speedy trial has been violated must be made on a case-by-case basis, and set forth four factors to be considered in the determination. 338:
The Supreme Court first noted that "he right to a speedy trial is generically different from any of the other rights enshrined in the Constitution for the protection of the accused" for three reasons:
2112: 262:
Believing that the case against Manning was the stronger of the two, and that Manning's testimony was needed to convict Barker (in his own case, Manning exercised his right under the
375:
As a balancing test, the Court adopted four factors to be considered in determining, on a case-by-case basis, whether a defendant has been prejudiced by the lack of a speedy trial:
706: 442: 414: 112: 72: 314: 104: 783: 271:
September), for each term the prosecution would seek a continuance in the Barker case, until the beginning of the following term, while the Manning cases were ongoing.
2034: 405:
Justice White, joined by Justice Brennan, concurred in the verdict, and specifically commented that an overcrowded docket would not be a reasonable basis for a delay.
505:
Counsel for the Commonwealth of Kentucky conceded at oral argument before the Supreme Court that Barker's counsel first objected in February 1962, not February 1963.
354:
The Court then noted that there were two competing approaches as to how to handle the uncertainty regarding "how long is too long"; neither of which it accepted:
2107: 2068: 774: 263: 240: 2122: 2117: 1875: 1167: 1648: 1079: 929: 35: 1834: 614: 1795: 1696: 1509: 129:
Determinations of whether the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial has been violated must be done on a case-by-case basis.
1346: 1311: 1087: 1677: 767: 1533: 1226: 468:
allow a change of venue. The fifth and sixth trials resulted in murder convictions which Manning chose not to appeal.
236: 1103: 1012: 493: 1739: 1052: 1044: 256: 1628: 1421: 1199: 1036: 948: 809: 288: 2014: 1843: 1822: 1525: 1429: 1191: 1175: 1151: 956: 825: 359: 1883: 1603: 1445: 1330: 1303: 1295: 1135: 980: 760: 735: 100: 1787: 1557: 1477: 1143: 1095: 913: 160: 2044: 1899: 1859: 1763: 1119: 988: 710: 446: 116: 64: 996: 1923: 1867: 1755: 1747: 1549: 1402: 1127: 833: 717: 2052: 1955: 1771: 1640: 1501: 1493: 1485: 1234: 972: 921: 797: 666: 188: 2076: 2022: 1947: 1915: 1803: 1656: 1517: 1381: 1266: 1258: 1028: 1020: 875: 683: 631: 322: 152: 259:
were murdered in their home by intruders, later identified as Willie Barker and Silas Manning.
1939: 1931: 1779: 1723: 1715: 1584: 1461: 1338: 1274: 1250: 1242: 1071: 306: 196: 176: 2060: 1979: 1907: 1851: 1565: 1437: 1183: 675: 623: 144: 1469: 1453: 1286: 1111: 605: 752: 304:. Though the District Court denied the petition, it granted Barker the right to proceed 1995: 1971: 1963: 1731: 1218: 1004: 726: 449: 184: 164: 2101: 1987: 1541: 1159: 964: 296: 1891: 867: 854: 244: 67: 419: 172: 108: 79: 744: 347:
has the burden to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt).
687: 635: 385:
the time and manner in which the defendant has asserted his right, and
679: 627: 388:
the degree of prejudice to the defendant which the delay has caused.
366:
it considered a speedy trial to be a fundamental right, and quoting
302:
United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
97: 1675: 1626: 1400: 1369: 894: 852: 795: 756: 30: 643:
Rudstein, David Stewart (1975). "The Right to a Speedy Trial:
287:
Barker appealed his conviction on speedy trial grounds to the
243:, specifically the right of defendants in criminal cases to a 610:: Reviving a Constitutional Remedy in an Age of Statutes" 2113:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
415:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 407
315:
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
2033: 2006: 1833: 1814: 1707: 1688: 1595: 1576: 1413: 1322: 1285: 1210: 1063: 940: 905: 220: 209: 204: 133: 123: 92: 87: 59: 49: 42: 23: 310:and a certificate of probable cause to appeal. 768: 8: 537: 535: 533: 1685: 1672: 1623: 1410: 1397: 1366: 902: 891: 849: 792: 775: 761: 753: 321:The United States Supreme Court granted a 54:Willie Mae Barker v. John W. Wingo, Warden 20: 2069:Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California 241:Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 431: 255:On July 20, 1958, an elderly couple in 664:: Speedy Trial Gets a Fast Shuffle". 18:1972 United States Supreme Court case 7: 1168:Southern Union Co. v. United States 1649:United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal 1080:Almendarez-Torres v. United States 930:Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas 36:Supreme Court of the United States 14: 2108:United States Supreme Court cases 1596:Restrictions on cross-examination 713:514 (1972) is available from: 606:"A New Speedy Trial Standard for 590:that comported with due process." 649:University of Illinois Law Forum 615:University of Chicago Law Review 29: 1697:United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez 358:One approach (supported by the 2123:1972 in United States case law 1510:Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts 1013:Rosales-Lopez v. United States 1: 784:United States Sixth Amendment 660:Uviller, H. Richard (1972). " 291:, which affirmed it in 1964. 235:, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), was a 2118:Speedy Trial Clause case law 1678:Assistance of Counsel Clause 1227:Rassmussen v. United States 237:United States Supreme Court 2139: 1577:Face-to-face confrontation 1347:Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado 1045:McDonnell v. United States 745:Oyez (oral argument audio) 329:The Supreme Court decision 257:Christian County, Kentucky 1684: 1671: 1635: 1629:Compulsory Process Clause 1622: 1422:Reynolds v. United States 1409: 1396: 1376: 1365: 1200:Erlinger v. United States 1053:United States v. Tsarnaev 1037:Skilling v. United States 949:Reynolds v. United States 901: 890: 862: 848: 810:Klopfer v. North Carolina 804: 791: 604:Brooks, Brian P. (1994). 461:It would take a total of 382:the reason for the delay, 289:Kentucky Court of Appeals 138: 128: 28: 2015:Massiah v. United States 1844:Strickland v. Washington 1823:Glasser v. United States 1796:Nichols v. United States 1526:Bullcoming v. New Mexico 1430:Dowdell v. United States 1192:United States v. Haymond 1176:Alleyne v. United States 1152:Cunningham v. California 957:Glasser v. United States 826:Doggett v. United States 360:American Bar Association 224:White, joined by Brennan 1884:Glover v. United States 1604:Chambers v. Mississippi 1446:Bruton v. United States 1414:Out-of-court statements 1331:Tanner v. United States 1323:Impeachment of verdicts 1304:Burton v. United States 1296:United States v. Dawson 1136:United States v. Booker 1104:Harris v. United States 981:Witherspoon v. Illinois 294:In 1970 Barker filed a 2007:Uncounseled statements 1835:Ineffective assistance 1788:Pennsylvania v. Finley 1558:Samia v. United States 1478:Crawford v. Washington 1312:Smith v. United States 1144:Washington v. Recuenco 1096:Apprendi v. New Jersey 1088:Jones v. United States 914:Cheff v. Schnackenberg 647:in the Lower Courts". 494:385 S.W.2d 671 489:Barker v. Commonwealth 161:William J. Brennan Jr. 2045:Faretta v. California 1900:Woodford v. Visciotti 1860:Kimmelman v. Morrison 1764:Argersinger v. Hamlin 1120:Blakely v. Washington 989:Ham v. South Carolina 896:Impartial Jury Clause 527:, 407 U.S. at 520-21. 45:Decided June 22, 1972 43:Argued April 11, 1972 1924:Wright v. Van Patten 1868:Lockhart v. Fretwell 1756:Anders v. California 1748:Gideon v. Wainwright 1550:Hemphill v. New York 1534:Williams v. Illinois 1403:Confrontation Clause 1128:Schriro v. Summerlin 834:Betterman v. Montana 496: (Ky. 1964). 379:the length of delay, 334:Opinion of the court 2053:McKaskle v. Wiggins 1956:Padilla v. Kentucky 1772:Gagnon v. Scarpelli 1740:Hamilton v. Alabama 1641:Washington v. Texas 1502:Giles v. California 1494:Whorton v. Bockting 1486:Davis v. Washington 1235:Williams v. Florida 973:Sheppard v. Maxwell 922:Duncan v. Louisiana 798:Speedy Trial Clause 736:Library of Congress 667:Columbia Law Review 239:case involving the 189:Lewis F. Powell Jr. 78:92 S. Ct. 2182; 33 2077:Indiana v. Edwards 2023:Brewer v. Williams 1948:Porter v. McCollum 1916:Holland v. Jackson 1876:Williams v. Taylor 1804:Alabama v. Shelton 1657:Taylor v. Illinois 1518:Michigan v. Bryant 1382:Rabe v. Washington 1371:Information Clause 1267:Ramos v. Louisiana 1259:Burch v. Louisiana 1211:Size and unanimity 1029:Morgan v. Illinois 1021:Wainwright v. Witt 876:Presley v. Georgia 580:, 407 U.S. at 530. 568:, 407 U.S. at 526. 556:, 407 U.S. at 523. 544:, 407 U.S. at 521. 401:Concurring opinion 368:Carnley v. Cochran 323:writ of certiorari 213:Powell, joined by 153:William O. Douglas 149:Associate Justices 2095: 2094: 2091: 2090: 2087: 2086: 1940:Wong v. Belmontes 1932:Bobby v. Van Hook 1780:Scott v. Illinois 1724:Johnson v. Zerbst 1716:Powell v. Alabama 1667: 1666: 1618: 1617: 1614: 1613: 1585:Maryland v. Craig 1462:Illinois v. Allen 1392: 1391: 1361: 1360: 1357: 1356: 1339:Warger v. Shauers 1275:Edwards v. Vannoy 1251:Ballew v. Georgia 1243:Apodaca v. Oregon 1072:Walton v. Arizona 886: 885: 844: 843: 307:in forma pauperis 228: 227: 197:William Rehnquist 177:Thurgood Marshall 2130: 2061:Rock v. Arkansas 1980:Lafler v. Cooper 1908:Wiggins v. Smith 1852:Nix v. Whiteside 1686: 1673: 1624: 1566:Smith v. Arizona 1438:Pointer v. Texas 1411: 1398: 1367: 1184:Hurst v. Florida 997:Ristaino v. Ross 903: 892: 850: 793: 777: 770: 763: 754: 749: 743: 740: 734: 731: 725: 722: 716: 691: 674:(8): 1376–1402. 656: 639: 591: 587: 581: 575: 569: 563: 557: 551: 545: 539: 528: 522: 516: 512: 506: 503: 497: 491: 485: 479: 475: 469: 459: 453: 436: 300:petition in the 267:Barker's trial. 145:Warren E. Burger 134:Court membership 119:1037 (1972). 33: 32: 21: 2138: 2137: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2083: 2029: 2002: 1829: 1810: 1703: 1680: 1663: 1631: 1610: 1591: 1572: 1470:Ohio v. Roberts 1454:Frazier v. Cupp 1405: 1388: 1372: 1353: 1318: 1287:Vicinage Clause 1281: 1206: 1112:Ring v. Arizona 1059: 936: 897: 882: 858: 840: 818:Barker v. Wingo 800: 787: 781: 747: 741: 738: 732: 729: 723: 720: 714: 703:Barker v. Wingo 698: 680:10.2307/1121490 662:Barker v. Wingo 659: 645:Barker v. Wingo 642: 628:10.2307/1600046 603: 600: 598:Further reading 595: 594: 588: 584: 576: 572: 564: 560: 552: 548: 540: 531: 523: 519: 513: 509: 504: 500: 487: 486: 482: 476: 472: 460: 456: 439:Barker v. Wingo 437: 433: 428: 411: 403: 336: 331: 285: 264:Fifth Amendment 253: 251:Facts and trial 232:Barker v. Wingo 187: 175: 163: 83: 44: 38: 24:Barker v. Wingo 19: 12: 11: 5: 2136: 2134: 2126: 2125: 2120: 2115: 2110: 2100: 2099: 2093: 2092: 2089: 2088: 2085: 2084: 2082: 2081: 2073: 2065: 2057: 2049: 2040: 2038: 2037:representation 2031: 2030: 2028: 2027: 2019: 2010: 2008: 2004: 2003: 2001: 2000: 1996:Garza v. Idaho 1992: 1984: 1976: 1972:Premo v. Moore 1968: 1964:Sears v. Upton 1960: 1952: 1944: 1936: 1928: 1920: 1912: 1904: 1896: 1888: 1880: 1872: 1864: 1856: 1848: 1839: 1837: 1831: 1830: 1828: 1827: 1818: 1816: 1812: 1811: 1809: 1808: 1800: 1792: 1784: 1776: 1768: 1760: 1752: 1744: 1736: 1732:Betts v. Brady 1728: 1720: 1711: 1709: 1705: 1704: 1702: 1701: 1692: 1690: 1682: 1681: 1676: 1669: 1668: 1665: 1664: 1662: 1661: 1653: 1645: 1636: 1633: 1632: 1627: 1620: 1619: 1616: 1615: 1612: 1611: 1609: 1608: 1599: 1597: 1593: 1592: 1590: 1589: 1580: 1578: 1574: 1573: 1571: 1570: 1562: 1554: 1546: 1538: 1530: 1522: 1514: 1506: 1498: 1490: 1482: 1474: 1466: 1458: 1450: 1442: 1434: 1426: 1417: 1415: 1407: 1406: 1401: 1394: 1393: 1390: 1389: 1387: 1386: 1377: 1374: 1373: 1370: 1363: 1362: 1359: 1358: 1355: 1354: 1352: 1351: 1343: 1335: 1326: 1324: 1320: 1319: 1317: 1316: 1308: 1300: 1291: 1289: 1283: 1282: 1280: 1279: 1271: 1263: 1255: 1247: 1239: 1231: 1223: 1219:Maxwell v. Dow 1214: 1212: 1208: 1207: 1205: 1204: 1196: 1188: 1180: 1172: 1164: 1156: 1148: 1140: 1132: 1124: 1116: 1108: 1100: 1092: 1084: 1076: 1067: 1065: 1061: 1060: 1058: 1057: 1049: 1041: 1033: 1025: 1017: 1009: 1005:Adams v. Texas 1001: 993: 985: 977: 969: 961: 953: 944: 942: 938: 937: 935: 934: 926: 918: 909: 907: 899: 898: 895: 888: 887: 884: 883: 881: 880: 872: 863: 860: 859: 853: 846: 845: 842: 841: 839: 838: 830: 822: 814: 805: 802: 801: 796: 789: 788: 782: 780: 779: 772: 765: 757: 751: 750: 718:Google Scholar 697: 696:External links 694: 693: 692: 657: 640: 622:(2): 587–611. 608:Barker v Wingo 599: 596: 593: 592: 582: 570: 558: 546: 529: 517: 507: 498: 480: 470: 454: 430: 429: 427: 424: 423: 422: 417: 410: 407: 402: 399: 390: 389: 386: 383: 380: 373: 372: 363: 352: 351: 348: 344: 335: 332: 330: 327: 284: 281: 252: 249: 226: 225: 222: 218: 217: 211: 207: 206: 202: 201: 200: 199: 185:Harry Blackmun 165:Potter Stewart 150: 147: 142: 136: 135: 131: 130: 126: 125: 121: 120: 94: 90: 89: 85: 84: 77: 61: 57: 56: 51: 50:Full case name 47: 46: 40: 39: 34: 26: 25: 17: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2135: 2124: 2121: 2119: 2116: 2114: 2111: 2109: 2106: 2105: 2103: 2079: 2078: 2074: 2071: 2070: 2066: 2063: 2062: 2058: 2055: 2054: 2050: 2047: 2046: 2042: 2041: 2039: 2036: 2032: 2025: 2024: 2020: 2017: 2016: 2012: 2011: 2009: 2005: 1998: 1997: 1993: 1990: 1989: 1988:Buck v. Davis 1985: 1982: 1981: 1977: 1974: 1973: 1969: 1966: 1965: 1961: 1958: 1957: 1953: 1950: 1949: 1945: 1942: 1941: 1937: 1934: 1933: 1929: 1926: 1925: 1921: 1918: 1917: 1913: 1910: 1909: 1905: 1902: 1901: 1897: 1894: 1893: 1889: 1886: 1885: 1881: 1878: 1877: 1873: 1870: 1869: 1865: 1862: 1861: 1857: 1854: 1853: 1849: 1846: 1845: 1841: 1840: 1838: 1836: 1832: 1825: 1824: 1820: 1819: 1817: 1815:Conflict-free 1813: 1806: 1805: 1801: 1798: 1797: 1793: 1790: 1789: 1785: 1782: 1781: 1777: 1774: 1773: 1769: 1766: 1765: 1761: 1758: 1757: 1753: 1750: 1749: 1745: 1742: 1741: 1737: 1734: 1733: 1729: 1726: 1725: 1721: 1718: 1717: 1713: 1712: 1710: 1706: 1699: 1698: 1694: 1693: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1674: 1670: 1659: 1658: 1654: 1651: 1650: 1646: 1643: 1642: 1638: 1637: 1634: 1630: 1625: 1621: 1606: 1605: 1601: 1600: 1598: 1594: 1587: 1586: 1582: 1581: 1579: 1575: 1568: 1567: 1563: 1560: 1559: 1555: 1552: 1551: 1547: 1544: 1543: 1542:Ohio v. Clark 1539: 1536: 1535: 1531: 1528: 1527: 1523: 1520: 1519: 1515: 1512: 1511: 1507: 1504: 1503: 1499: 1496: 1495: 1491: 1488: 1487: 1483: 1480: 1479: 1475: 1472: 1471: 1467: 1464: 1463: 1459: 1456: 1455: 1451: 1448: 1447: 1443: 1440: 1439: 1435: 1432: 1431: 1427: 1424: 1423: 1419: 1418: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1399: 1395: 1384: 1383: 1379: 1378: 1375: 1368: 1364: 1349: 1348: 1344: 1341: 1340: 1336: 1333: 1332: 1328: 1327: 1325: 1321: 1314: 1313: 1309: 1306: 1305: 1301: 1298: 1297: 1293: 1292: 1290: 1288: 1284: 1277: 1276: 1272: 1269: 1268: 1264: 1261: 1260: 1256: 1253: 1252: 1248: 1245: 1244: 1240: 1237: 1236: 1232: 1229: 1228: 1224: 1221: 1220: 1216: 1215: 1213: 1209: 1202: 1201: 1197: 1194: 1193: 1189: 1186: 1185: 1181: 1178: 1177: 1173: 1170: 1169: 1165: 1162: 1161: 1160:Oregon v. Ice 1157: 1154: 1153: 1149: 1146: 1145: 1141: 1138: 1137: 1133: 1130: 1129: 1125: 1122: 1121: 1117: 1114: 1113: 1109: 1106: 1105: 1101: 1098: 1097: 1093: 1090: 1089: 1085: 1082: 1081: 1077: 1074: 1073: 1069: 1068: 1066: 1062: 1055: 1054: 1050: 1047: 1046: 1042: 1039: 1038: 1034: 1031: 1030: 1026: 1023: 1022: 1018: 1015: 1014: 1010: 1007: 1006: 1002: 999: 998: 994: 991: 990: 986: 983: 982: 978: 975: 974: 970: 967: 966: 965:Irvin v. Dowd 962: 959: 958: 954: 951: 950: 946: 945: 943: 939: 932: 931: 927: 924: 923: 919: 916: 915: 911: 910: 908: 904: 900: 893: 889: 878: 877: 873: 870: 869: 865: 864: 861: 856: 851: 847: 836: 835: 831: 828: 827: 823: 820: 819: 815: 812: 811: 807: 806: 803: 799: 794: 790: 785: 778: 773: 771: 766: 764: 759: 758: 755: 746: 737: 728: 719: 712: 708: 704: 700: 699: 695: 689: 685: 681: 677: 673: 669: 668: 663: 658: 654: 650: 646: 641: 637: 633: 629: 625: 621: 617: 616: 611: 609: 602: 601: 597: 586: 583: 579: 574: 571: 567: 562: 559: 555: 550: 547: 543: 538: 536: 534: 530: 526: 521: 518: 511: 508: 502: 499: 495: 490: 484: 481: 474: 471: 466: 465: 458: 455: 451: 448: 444: 440: 435: 432: 425: 421: 418: 416: 413: 412: 408: 406: 400: 398: 394: 387: 384: 381: 378: 377: 376: 369: 364: 361: 357: 356: 355: 349: 345: 341: 340: 339: 333: 328: 326: 324: 319: 316: 311: 309: 308: 303: 299: 298: 297:habeas corpus 292: 290: 282: 280: 276: 272: 268: 265: 260: 258: 250: 248: 246: 242: 238: 234: 233: 223: 219: 216: 212: 208: 205:Case opinions 203: 198: 194: 190: 186: 182: 178: 174: 170: 166: 162: 158: 154: 151: 148: 146: 143: 141:Chief Justice 140: 139: 137: 132: 127: 122: 118: 114: 110: 106: 102: 99: 95: 91: 86: 81: 75: 74: 69: 66: 62: 58: 55: 52: 48: 41: 37: 27: 22: 16: 2075: 2067: 2059: 2051: 2043: 2021: 2013: 1994: 1986: 1978: 1970: 1962: 1954: 1946: 1938: 1930: 1922: 1914: 1906: 1898: 1892:Bell v. Cone 1890: 1882: 1874: 1866: 1858: 1850: 1842: 1821: 1802: 1794: 1786: 1778: 1770: 1762: 1754: 1746: 1738: 1730: 1722: 1714: 1695: 1655: 1647: 1639: 1602: 1583: 1564: 1556: 1548: 1540: 1532: 1524: 1516: 1508: 1500: 1492: 1484: 1476: 1468: 1460: 1452: 1444: 1436: 1428: 1420: 1380: 1345: 1337: 1329: 1310: 1307:(1905, 1906) 1302: 1294: 1273: 1265: 1257: 1249: 1241: 1233: 1225: 1217: 1198: 1190: 1182: 1174: 1166: 1158: 1150: 1142: 1134: 1126: 1118: 1110: 1102: 1094: 1086: 1078: 1070: 1051: 1043: 1035: 1027: 1019: 1011: 1003: 995: 987: 979: 971: 963: 955: 947: 941:Impartiality 928: 920: 912: 906:Availability 874: 868:In re Oliver 866: 855:Public Trial 832: 824: 817: 816: 808: 702: 671: 665: 661: 652: 648: 644: 619: 613: 607: 585: 577: 573: 565: 561: 553: 549: 541: 524: 520: 510: 501: 488: 483: 473: 463: 462: 457: 452: (1972). 438: 434: 404: 395: 391: 374: 367: 353: 337: 320: 312: 305: 295: 293: 286: 277: 273: 269: 261: 254: 245:speedy trial 231: 230: 229: 214: 192: 180: 168: 156: 88:Case history 71: 53: 15: 1708:Appointment 1064:Facts found 655:(1): 11–58. 515:convicted." 420:Continuance 221:Concurrence 173:Byron White 111:. granted, 2102:Categories 426:References 393:illness). 325:in 1972. 215:unanimous 80:L. Ed. 2d 60:Citations 786:case law 701:Text of 409:See also 371:waiver." 210:Majority 105:6th Cir. 688:1121490 636:1600046 283:Appeals 124:Holding 107:1971); 2080:(2008) 2072:(2000) 2064:(1987) 2056:(1984) 2048:(1975) 2035:Pro se 2026:(1977) 2018:(1963) 1999:(2019) 1991:(2017) 1983:(2012) 1975:(2011) 1967:(2010) 1959:(2010) 1951:(2009) 1943:(2009) 1935:(2009) 1927:(2008) 1919:(2004) 1911:(2003) 1903:(2002) 1895:(2002) 1887:(2001) 1879:(2000) 1871:(1993) 1863:(1986) 1855:(1986) 1847:(1984) 1826:(1942) 1807:(2002) 1799:(1994) 1791:(1987) 1783:(1979) 1775:(1973) 1767:(1972) 1759:(1967) 1751:(1963) 1743:(1961) 1735:(1942) 1727:(1938) 1719:(1932) 1700:(2006) 1689:Choice 1660:(1988) 1652:(1982) 1644:(1967) 1607:(1973) 1588:(1990) 1569:(2024) 1561:(2023) 1553:(2022) 1545:(2015) 1537:(2012) 1529:(2011) 1521:(2011) 1513:(2009) 1505:(2008) 1497:(2007) 1489:(2006) 1481:(2004) 1473:(1980) 1465:(1970) 1457:(1969) 1449:(1968) 1441:(1965) 1433:(1911) 1425:(1878) 1385:(1972) 1350:(2017) 1342:(2014) 1334:(1987) 1315:(2023) 1299:(1853) 1278:(2021) 1270:(2020) 1262:(1979) 1254:(1978) 1246:(1972) 1238:(1970) 1230:(1905) 1222:(1900) 1203:(2024) 1195:(2019) 1187:(2016) 1179:(2013) 1171:(2012) 1163:(2009) 1155:(2007) 1147:(2006) 1139:(2005) 1131:(2004) 1123:(2004) 1115:(2002) 1107:(2002) 1099:(2000) 1091:(1999) 1083:(1998) 1075:(1990) 1056:(2022) 1048:(2016) 1040:(2010) 1032:(1992) 1024:(1985) 1016:(1981) 1008:(1980) 1000:(1976) 992:(1973) 984:(1968) 976:(1966) 968:(1961) 960:(1942) 952:(1878) 933:(1989) 925:(1968) 917:(1966) 879:(2010) 871:(1948) 857:Clause 837:(2016) 829:(1992) 821:(1972) 813:(1967) 748:  742:  739:  733:  730:  727:Justia 724:  721:  715:  686:  634:  578:Barker 566:Barker 554:Barker 542:Barker 525:Barker 492:, 441:, 195: 193:· 191:  183: 181:· 179:  171: 169:· 167:  159: 157:· 155:  709: 684:JSTOR 632:JSTOR 445: 115: 93:Prior 711:U.S. 653:1975 447:U.S. 313:The 117:U.S. 109:cert 101:1141 98:F.2d 96:442 73:more 65:U.S. 63:407 707:407 676:doi 624:doi 464:six 450:514 443:407 113:404 82:101 68:514 2104:: 705:, 682:. 672:72 670:. 651:. 630:. 620:61 618:. 612:. 532:^ 776:e 769:t 762:v 690:. 678:: 638:. 626:: 103:( 76:) 70:(

Index

Supreme Court of the United States
U.S.
514
more
L. Ed. 2d
F.2d
1141
6th Cir.
cert
404
U.S.
Warren E. Burger
William O. Douglas
William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart
Byron White
Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist
United States Supreme Court
Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
speedy trial
Christian County, Kentucky
Fifth Amendment
Kentucky Court of Appeals
habeas corpus
United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
in forma pauperis
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.