# Freeman C. Edmaiston v. William S. Neil, Warden

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · December 3, 1971 · 452 F.2d 494

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9457629

## Case

- **Full name:** Freeman C. EDMAISTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William S. NEIL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 3, 1971
- **Citations:** 452 F.2d 494; 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 6775
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Weick
- **Judges:** Weick, Celebrezze, Peck
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9457629

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that the defendant’s “own memory was understandably vague with regard to events occurring eight and one-half years before trial”

## Opinion text

WEICK, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
In my opinion the speedy trial safeguard of the Sixth Amendment applies only to delay occurring after the defendant has been charged with the commission of an offense. In the present case only a warrant for his arrest had been issued in Tennessee. He had not been arrested; rather, only a detainer was filed with authorities in Illinois. It is questionable here whether a demand for trial was ever made to the proper authority. See Short v. Cardwell, 444 F.2d 1368 (6th Cir. 1971).
Delay in filing an indictment is governed by the applicable statute of limitations. This has been the established law of the Sixth Circuit for many years. Lothridge v. United States, 441 F.2d 919 (6th Cir. 1971); United States v. Harris, 412 F.2d 471 (6th Cir. 1969) ; Hoopengarner v. United States, 270 F.2d 465, 469 (6th Cir. 1959); Parker v. United States, 252 F.2d 680 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 964 , 78 S.Ct. 1003 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1958). Accord: Reece v. United States, 337 F.2d 852 (5th Cir. 1964); Harlow v. United States, 301 F.2d 361 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 814 , 83 S.Ct. 25 , 9 L.Ed.2d 56 (1962); Foley v. United States, 290 F.2d 562 (8th Cir. 1961); D’Aquino v. United States, 192 F.2d 338 (9th Cir. 1951), cert. denied, 343 U.S. 935 , 72 S.Ct. 772 , 96 L.Ed. 1343 (1952). See also United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 , 92 S.Ct. 455 , 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (Decided December 20, 1971).
I would affirm for the reasons stated by Chief Judge Bailey Brown in his Memorandum Decision and Order Denying Petition and Dismissing Action, 334 F.Supp. 1316 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9457629. Public record. Not legal advice.