The historic origins of the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial were traced in some detail by THE CHIEF JUSTICE in his opinion for

Thesaurus

						iLaw Dictionary			USAConstitution Law
						California			Law Students-USL
						Law Dictionary			BankruptcyCode.US
						Criminal Law-Trial			United States Law.US

US Codes

State Codes

Evidence

Law Students-USL

Federal Rules of Evidence

Medical Dictionaries

A Legal and Business Portal
A Legal and Business Portal

iLaw Dictionary
California
Law Dictionary
Criminal Law -Trial -Constitutional Right to a speedy trial
(Smith v Hooey)

A - Aa - Ab -Ac - Ad - Ae - - B- C- D - E- F - G - H -I- J - K - L - M- N -O- P - P to Z

Criminal Law -Trial -Constitutional Right to a speedy trial -Purpose-Purpose
(Smith v Hooey)

The historic origins of the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial were traced in some detail by THE CHIEF JUSTICE in his opinion for the Court in Klopfer, supra, at 223-226, and we need not review that history again here. Suffice it to remember that this constitutional guarantee has universally 6 been thought essential to protect [393 U.S. 374, 378] at least three basic demands of criminal justice in the Anglo-American legal system:

"1. to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration prior to trial,

2. to minimize anxiety and concern accompanying public accusation and

3. to limit the possibilities that long delay will impair the ability of an accused to defend himself." United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116, 120 .

These demands are both aggravated and compounded in the case of an accused who is imprisoned by another jurisdiction.

At first blush it might appear that a man already in prison under a lawful sentence is hardly in a position to suffer from "undue and oppressive incarceration prior to trial." But the fact is that delay in bringing such a person to trial on a pending charge may ultimately result in as much oppression as is suffered by one who is jailed without bail upon an untried charge. First, the possibility that the defendant already in prison might receive a sentence at least partially concurrent with the one he is serving may be forever lost if trial of the pending charge is postponed. 7 Secondly, under procedures now widely practiced, the duration of his present imprisonment may be increased, and the conditions under which he must serve his sentence greatly worsened, by the pendency of another criminal charge outstanding against him. 8 [393 U.S. 374, 379]

And while it might be argued that a person already in prison would be less likely than others to be affected by "anxiety and concern accompanying public accusation," there is reason to believe that an outstanding untried charge (of which even a convict may, of course, be innocent) can have fully as depressive an effect upon a prisoner as upon a person who is at large. Cf. Klopfer v. North Carolina, supra, at 221-222. In the opinion of the former Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons,

"[I]t is in their effect upon the prisoner and our attempts to rehabilitate him that detainers are most corrosive. The strain of having to serve a sentence with the uncertain prospect of being taken into the custody of another state at the conclusion interferes with the prisoner's ability to take maximum advantage of his institutional opportunities. His anxiety and depression may leave him with little inclination toward self-improvement." 9

Finally, it is self-evident that "the possibilities that long delay will impair the ability of an accused to defend himself" are markedly increased when the accused is incarcerated in another jurisdiction. Confined in a prison, perhaps far from the place where the offense covered by the outstanding charge allegedly took place, his ability to confer with potential defense witnesses, or even to [393 U.S. 374, 380] keep track of their whereabouts, is obviously impaired. And, while "evidence and witnesses disappear, memories fade, and events lose their perspective," 10 a man isolated in prison is powerless to exert his own investigative efforts to mitigate these erosive effects of the passage of time.

Smith v. Hooey (1969) 393 U.S. 374, 378-Right to speedy trial

A - Aa - Ab - Ac - B- C- D - E- F - G - H -I- J - L - M- N - K to Z
People v Lowe H026889 1/24/05 CA6 Right to speedy trial
Reichardt v. Hoffman (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 754, 764-765
Bruton v. United States, supra, 391 U.S. 123 [20 L.Ed.2d 476]
California: Authoritative-Law Dictionary: Table of Contents
Glossaries Directory Table of Contents
Thesaurus Directory
Dictionaries Directory Table of Contents