holding that states are under "a constitutional duty to make a diligent, good-faith effort” to acquire the presence of a defendant incarcerated in another jurisdiction in order to comport with the constitutional requirement of a speedy trial
How later courts described this case
- holding that states are under "a constitutional duty to make a diligent, good-faith effort” to acquire the presence of a defendant incarcerated in another jurisdiction in order to comport with the constitutional requirement of a speedy trial
- explaining that the accused’s ability to defend himself while incarcerated is hampered because “his ability to confer with potential defense witnesses, or even to keep track of their whereabouts, is obviously impaired”
- holding the State had a constitutional duty, upon request of federal prisoner that he be brought to trial on a state charge, to make a diligent, good-faith effort to bring him before state court for trial
- holding that where a defendant in federal custody in another state demands a speedy trial on state criminal charges, the state must make diligent, good-faith efforts to secure his presence for trial
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Gaches v. THIRD JUDICIAL DIST., ETC., STATE OF UTAH, 416 F. Supp. 767 (1976)
393 U.S. 374, 89 S.Ct. 575, 21 L.Ed.2d 607 (1969) relied upon by the petitioner is clearly distinguishable for in that case the petitioner had not been found guilty of the State charge.
The opinion
Mr. Justice White,
concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court, understanding its remand of the cause “for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion” to leave open the ultimate question whether Texas must dismiss the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The Texas court’s erroneous reliance on the fact of incarceration elsewhere prevented it from reaching the other facets of this question, which may now be adjudicated in the manner permitted by Texas procedure.