holding that the alleged denial of petitioner’s right to a speedy trial does not constitute a “per se extraordinary circumstance” as to require federal intervention prior to exhaustion of state court remedies and explaining that the petitioner would have “an opportunity to raise his claimed denial of the right to a speedy trial during his state trial and any subsequent appellate proceedings in the state courts” (internal quotation marks omitted)
How later courts described this case
- holding that the alleged denial of petitioner’s right to a speedy trial does not constitute a “per se extraordinary circumstance” as to require federal intervention prior to exhaustion of state court remedies and explaining that the petitioner would have “an opportunity to raise his claimed denial of the right to a speedy trial during his state trial and any subsequent appellate proceedings in the state courts” (internal quotation marks omitted)
- stating that speedy trial issues require state exhaustion before there can be federal habeas consideration, unless the petitioner can demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances” that would obviate the exhaustion requirement
- explaining a federal court should not exercise habeas “jurisdiction without exhaustion . . . at the pre-trial stage unless extraordinary circumstances are present”; otherwise, the petitioner must exhaust state remedies and make a special showing of the need for adjudicationbefore trial
- holding that the pe- titioner’s “claim of alleged denial of the right to a speedy trial [by the state court] does not fall within the extraordinary circum- stances envisioned in Younger”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SEITZ, Chief Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result. The emphasis by the Supreme Court in Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 , 93 S.Ct. 1123 , 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973), on the fact that the petitioner there did not seek to abort a state proceeding compels me to conclude that where, as here, a “derailment of a pending state proceeding” is sought, intervention by a federal court cannot be permitted.