|
|
United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971)
United States v. Marion No. 70-19 Argued November 8, 1971 Decided December 20, 1971 404 U.S. 307
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Syllabus
Appellees, claiming that the Government had known of the crimes with which they were charged, the circumstances of the crimes, and appellees’ identities for over three years before they were indicted, moved to dismiss on the ground that the indictment was returned "an unreasonably oppressive and unjustifiable time after the alleged offenses," and that the delay deprived them of rights to due process of law and a speedy trial as secured by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. While asserting no specific prejudice, appellees contended that the indictment required memory of many specific acts and conversations occurring several years before and that the delay was due to the prosecutor’s negligence or indifference in investigating the case and presenting it to the grand jury. The District Court, after a hearing, granted appellees’ motion and dismissed the indictment for "lack of speedy prosecution," having found that the defense was "bound to have been seriously prejudiced" by the three-year delay. The Government took a direct appeal to this Court, which postponed consideration of the question of jurisdiction until the hearing on the merits.
Held:
1. The motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of a speedy trial was in the nature of a confession and avoidance, and constituted a motion in bar by appellees who had not been placed in jeopardy when the District Court entered its order of dismissal. That order was therefore directly appealable to this Court under former 18 U.S.C. § 3731. Pp. 311-312.
2. The Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a speedy trial is applicable only after a person has been "accused" of a crime, which in this case did not occur until appellees (who had not previously been arrested or otherwise charged) were indicted. Pp. 313-320.
3. The relevant statute of limitations provides a safeguard against possible prejudice resulting from pre-accusation delay, and here appellees were indicted within the applicable limitations period. Pp. 320-323.
4. Though the Due Process Clause may provide a basis for dismissing an indictment if the defense can how at trial that prosecutorial delay has prejudiced the right to a fair trial, appellees have not claimed or proved actual prejudice resulting from the delay, and their due process claims are therefore speculative and premature. Pp. 325-326.
Reversed.
WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and STEWART and BLACKMUN JJ., joined. DOUGLAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, in which BRENNAN and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 326.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971) in 404 U.S. 307 404 U.S. 308. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=UC5LDIJ4V2VRUT5.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971), in 404 U.S. 307, page 404 U.S. 308. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=UC5LDIJ4V2VRUT5.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971). cited in 1971, 404 U.S. 307, pp.404 U.S. 308. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=UC5LDIJ4V2VRUT5.
|