Petitioners Brief — Smith v. Hooey

Be - SIA .'-. oe ; 7 : : | om : - tot

"supreme COURT. Be 0 eee FILED

- O8r 181000

1 sae cm a YF ou, cc

OCTOBER TERM, 1968 =

ee “No. 198

Ff ¢« ; as. 9 9 ;

| Rete | ‘Rrowarp’M. Sarr, :

: | -° Petitioner,

—v— :

Faep M. Hoory, J fudge, . Criminal District Court.

of Harris: County, Texas, —

o fe ;

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER = 8

“S | Cuantzs Aran Waicut

Attorney for the Petitioner

2500 Red River Street

° ? ‘

J

° ’ Whi

Py f ;

4

P : 4

%

'

’

‘ ° | ; fi

é ,

J 7k d

4 4 j '

.

; .

‘

b Bos bZ

*

47 4

rye it .

4

2 #

. ;

‘

ar a%

_9 : ;

4 a

P ‘ Z tg ht se. . io 4 i

. “Statement of the Case Baivite: iad

7k anh & it? ree a4 7

be ; . Veh we We

i Bonimary ot Argument - * va " B + th, 4 Weg by y

a +e +4

+ EPetitioner’ Has Been

on the State ag

oe ‘cases: eae 7

, . Auten v. State, S77 P24 61 (Oki. Cr. 1962) 19, ...

‘ " Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719,(1968) .... ‘7,298,294

Barker v. Municipal Court, 64 Cal2d: 806, 415 :

P2d 809 (1966) if. >

‘<— Bates-v. State, Na —__, 436 P.2a 27 (1968) ee

Burton v. State, 214 Tenn. 9, ay wh ha Eo ae

(1964), xd ea i shies IS

Com th v, Harmon, 2 Pa. B.& C2d see

951 (Cuniberland Co. 1960)° 18

Gommonwealth v. McGrath, 348 Mass. 748, 205

_ NGB.2a)710 (1965) - i 19,21

) Cooper ¥: State, 400 S.W.2d 890 {Tex. 1966). 9,10, 21.

Dickey v. Circuit Court 200 So2d: 521 (Fla. ..

| * 1967) © = 15,19 -

ot ae Pinatfedmaier State, ais Pad 08 (Okls Cr

|,

os "Evans v. Mitchell, 200 Kan. 290, ob P20 08

- (1968). 12,18

Ea Porte. Schechtel, 108, Colo, it, 82 Peed 762

a een eee:

+ Ford y. Presiding Judge; Twentieth Judicial Cir: :

"quit, SIT Ala. BB, 167 Bo.2d 166 (1964) a of oe

: Hendorion ¥. Oiteit Coury; 027.24. 551 (6th ee

See ‘Revelors State 369 Pd 479 (OX. Ci 1963) 19, oe

: . em 3 Btete.of Kanee, 900, B.23.196 (10th: a :

Vee ee oe ae

a ‘Tass oF Aprons

| Klopfer * North Corolina, 386 US. 213 (1967),

Pee ee See

ée v. Slate, 412 S.W.2d 40 (1967) .7

Ga yo eden

2

is *

‘ 2

ws a

ea

; :

‘s;

°

€

8

&

eu

e

o

i Mate, Hol, Getaein te vino

$86."

QisintonY. Dutire 106 X 2 men

- (1965) / = 2738: er oe "a rr :

Richerson Vv: State, 91 Idaho 555, 428 P2d 61

(1967) en. 3 195

_Ruip 9, Knight, 385 8.W24270, (RY 1990) nag: 8

State v. Clark, 392 P.2d S89(Wy6. 1964)}..si2.. 18, 22 ss

“State. v. Evans, (Or: i +44 482: {P24} EY5i* .

(1967). inh wtih, eee re Lis 333 soi Sapals.. Lil f, 19.

(1963) 3:2 bi ie “} bei 5f% a re

State wy. Heistar, 95 358, 300 Pild 846 (1964) i

State v. Jehuain ‘Ohio roe ot NESd

953 (C.P. Hamilton: Qa1968)) 20th lo La

“Btate. we ta SDE Misi: B14) NWaa' 2.

DICCH.: Anes

id,

|

= .

. - ig ee

ae Note, Effective Gareok oh Speedy Trial oe

Convicts in Other Jurisdici aT Yale LJ. é

767 (1968) Pi it =

»- Note, 77 Yale L.J. 767, “(19685 5 Siaiiees 1, 13, 21, 23

Note, The Lagging. Right to a Speedy Trial, 51

Va. L-Rev. 1587 (1965). . a

Rules of. the United States B Board. of Parole -

+

(1965)... aS

Schindler, Interjurisdictional Conflict ead the

Right to a Speedy Trial, 35° U.Cin.L.Rev. 179.

_’ Tappan, Crime, Justice and Correction. oe es

(1960) ...., : “p ee

Walther, Detainer- Warrants ‘and ‘the Speedy ©

ss Teigt es 46 ee 423 -. 15

oe

Fam M. Hoowr, Judge, Criminal Distret Ooirt

. of Harris » Commits Texas, Bre

4: wu , ” : :

fF PTE: BB a 3 * Respondent. .

OW WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ‘TEXAS *

t 8

e A i : ~

~~ ae ;

Priests Ba ees

°

J id 3°

. {. = .

. -Z f

‘Opinions, Below .

‘ip Supreme Court of Tiss wrote to opinion in thin

onet of the denial of the petitic Sete

pinions of. that it and is

week: BERS ee SECO.

"tiles tare ee A sect va,

-_ in which petitioner's claim tinder: the Sixth and Fourtéenth

Amendments was-properly presented (A. 2-3), was denied

~~ ‘by the Texas Supreme Court.on June 28, 1967 (A. 5). The

_ Petition for a writ of certiorari, was filed August 10, 1907,°.

* and granted June 17, 1968. The juriadiction of this Court :

| rests on 28 U.S.C. $1257(3). eis

“Oontitutionsl Provstns and Statutes Involved

The Sixth Amendment provides:

"tn a cehntllh Soe liifd Wshinesd inal aor |

the zight to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial.

jury of the State and-distriet wherein the crime ‘shall

have been committed, which district shall have been

gy gPEN yed..by law, and to be’ informed of

3 the nature and cause-uf the accusation; to be con-

S th the witnesses against him; to have com-

"_ palsory’ provess for obtai ning Sense fo Ble taver,

=e (ae i,"

a “ 3 gh Fs -

Gatien Onn of the Fotiteenth Amendment provide: “

: "All persons bora of iiturdlized in the United States,

¥g a too" fw 2

forthe “Smp-

o | prisone ‘bees Sdt nell «3; ble: Ke

SS thi " (b) ‘This nection » shall ot 2 tthe) authority ‘ef the

aa Attorney General to transfer’ prisoners pursuant *to

- other ‘provisions af laws inde ty x20ah,pouel): ana

‘ EOF * g in Se —

ev ott" oedied yg ligrtue: tenceq

org, ry ae 2 a Fg “Eg7e) a

+h

WAV ae

+ ee pes ag

, a lige sea

:

°

.

’

\ ” wel *

- > me

- a ee

ay «

- ?

* A 4

Y %

i. % as *}

" 7 -

>

ise f ereapepareg ed an adequate euinidabihe state

babes ge Be ¢ OPES SETI ft erent

af fac v2 ’ 2 gniel. i Nd ES, joey ee Wyte EO =

Ai» + teen -af the Oaae tase 4

ew iv AA:

_—-Yeniegos: i i6: Court; ai Appendix Ato this brief (see

es 2° In the text of this | ‘of the Case,

only thosé facts ate stated that ican be deduced from the ee:

Shes . at

eo

: ‘Appendix: to this briet, ses: Response :

below. Ealiaiiaee uicun eae motion for

__ letive to proceed in forma pauperis «dpa Bar orm :

bed pcos agp cggh reasp

*

“emmary of Argument

arta! wet i tle ne ld

since 1960. ‘His efforts to obtain trial on that charge have

been unsuccessful. - “Phe state has failed to try him only

fo beosuse he has been-confined in « federal penitentiary. The

' ‘Texas view, announced in two resent decisions of the’ Su-

_ preme Court’of Texas, is that the state is under no obliga-

tesserae

- tion:to make. any ‘effort-to provide a speedy trial on a

Sa ee ee

bk: 2

r *. “of, ae r ry ean Legh while ‘the

. 43°) ee

‘ a ’

pogt Gn LU 8 ga Met 5 y,

a EE le Tee | ¥

EMEC OE, FO ns A elites “4

. ps og om, et Aes 2 * - 7 4 ,

7 y ve P , {

Lh ie wh Z 4 i, rs 3 A,

at . as ‘ ee is s* - f 7 oe . “~ j

hash oft GF ‘Gt ad ad : , " - ‘ 4 7 & b

>: OF vt oad 2

vad ee

Oo, Nig pz

rf ib: be

o AE bo

> | -

r

“ @

¥, wit th

(4 tym te:

i '¥t, } ; i Sugrving l %

fey Hi, we Bra he. itp itt wth

= ete ‘ : *

: = . 2 ae

s

ak, ahs tan ud dealing in

+ abligntiona: under @te; Speedy Trial: Glanse:than is de-_

een ae: + ae

ee Tt teens hod compaiod ts Dunees of Priscge.'to |

“make petitioner available for r trial ‘on the state change,’

he ‘Would have been produd@d for this purpose. Instemt’

“this ‘state made no effort of any | |

” eight years since the state indictme

on sed soap foen oboe peare dia We ivtec Wil allageily

committed. : Any trial at thig late date would be unfair. to

the. petitioner. ‘The state charge should be. ordered dis-

entee teri igite He nape Sil:

Py Roos

~ aa “ARGUMENT. pe ee ae

ae " ethionar Has Been Deutnd « Speedy Trial onthe State

= . y ecamme of His Federal Oonfinement. |

Thain he ih eae Ba ei ot

trial_on ‘a 1960 indictment charg-

ogedly committed in April, 1959.

Re) Dh iA

a ee ee’)

yi

apa in cle

The ‘

A

eh be di ¥

ORL aay es warren

oS i A

n

GA

&

x ]

©

”

’

,

‘ ‘

‘

sc

:

‘

,

.

é

“

»

;

.

.

°

,

.

%

.

‘

ee

°

‘

4 >)

’

\

"State, 40'S. W. 2 tee 8

Court, by vote of five to dows,

-_ federal custody is -

: a earlier écinion in the Moreau oot oa, 3

- tris? for a state prisoner, on the grow

-. Sale is “applicable ‘when two sepa ates

volved.” Id. at 891. It was eae

- the United States Bureau of was

quest, to’ make ‘Cooper available to the Texas:

be tried. ‘The majority of the

tee

Ur AO! ao, eet qagaihs,

peers and nth ity sini

» BO way. Pk ry ee in eiotantanee: ie

ig

FN See ee Rate

Be “Shee stat Hee ht

onde t of the conrt, and pick! have been

‘denial by lettérfrom the Administrative

“eterving ‘them to te at and Lawrence

3 SB

cy

2 a

2

ong

Qs

“nestes. may be unavailable. In fect, prejudice £0 the

conviet’s defense sige peony ecause an impris*:

~ oned defendant “is ess able. pt secret to keep

Waals pet ot? ‘the

dicial process. fa!

©. Note, The Lagging Right to a Speedy Trial, 51 Veber Le

1587, 1607 (1965). :

Delay varajedione: a@ prisoner ‘tanoteeia way, it ie

fendant is convicted of several offenses by’ ‘single ‘juris-

. diction, conenrrent sentences are both ‘common sand desir-

able. It is ‘possible for state ad fedéral sentenes from

more than one atate to be similarly’ served: ‘Bennett, “The .

Last Full: Ounce,” 23 Federal P ion, No. 2, .20, 21-22

(1959); Schindler; Interjurisdittional ‘Conflict: and the

Right to a Speedy Trial, 35° U.Cin. L.Rev. 179, 182-183

(1966); Note; 77 Yale L.J.. 767, ‘T70 :(1968): This‘ eannot

be done if-e state charge has not ‘been tried, and. remains

pending until e sentense-slsowhere has ‘been completed.

12

. “ ‘ .

ee ideiedibe sialialh Ricsiita:stebibsdblinio bicinns

- yamitieaily denied::to-@ prisoner against: whom there is a

| “~detainer, Tappan, Crime, Justice ond. Cotrection 224

(1960); Note, Detainers and the Correctional: Process, 1966

~ Wash, U.L.Q. 417, 490 n. 17° This rule was abandoned in

edera | system in 1954, and a prisoner otherwise eligible

the.

. tor parole may, in the discretion of the Board of Paroles,

2 be released to the custody of an official who has filed a

: —, 28 C.F.R. §2.9. See Rules of the United States -

Board of Porole 17-18 (1966), where it is said that the

"presence of a detainer does not prevent a federal prisoner

from being paroled, but that the detainer. may be con-

sidered by the Board of Parole vin Seemtaing Whether:

to grant parole.

. Tp many prison systems | a couyiet ‘ated to detainer |

is denied prison privileges available to other inmates.. “He :

» » Maay be held under maximum security, and may be denied —

ind the Right 40 0

- Many opportunities which other prisoners have: for exam-

- ple, ‘transfer to a minimum security aréa, the privilege of

becoming:a trusty, or assignment to any job which involves

some degree of trust.” Note, 1966 Wash. U.L.Q. 417, 418-

G19 See aleo United States v. Coadelaria, 131.-F.Supp. 797, -

9. (S.D.Cal, 1955), Schin ; Interjurisdictional Conflict —

ee Trial, 35 U.Cin.L.Rev. 179, 18i

- (1966). n'a retent case the Kainsas Supreme Court held :

Note, 77 Yale Lal. 767, 772 (1968).

: carennadiele: Each prisoner is on

| “bat there remains 9 tendency to ¢ nside D estip

+ and 'to assign’ them accordingly. : In: sang inatanson; tt

’ eraleation cai Soseion aie earners

4 Model Penal Code have estimated, as: sc coan ee ot ‘the -

; beso scan that. are: lodged. Against cs gy By . |

| ra ‘tow. detainers ‘om, federal, iampatee: are. iy ery :

. by prosecution.” Huston vy. State of Kansas, 390 F.2d 156,

157, (10th Cir. 1968), “The nuisance value: of detainers is

| illustrated by the 211 detainerg lifted at Leavenworth dur-

ing the year, usually about, the time, the, prisoners involved 7

‘were finishing their sentences.” Bennett, “The. Last Full -

- Ounce,” 23 Federal Probation, No. ‘2, 2, 21 (1959). ‘Tn that

same year detainers. were exccuted against only 114 pris-

- oners at Leavenworth. Ibid. As 4.commentator lias noted;

. “punitive motives often predominate. One proseduter wrote’ =

that 6 comsieh eae: aindcht Amgeisen” ee eyo |

7 pg Sane ge ppm a

“eis not peter tore whe is ose

*

. S i : hie Bie

I anthorit ies to.

be hip ee Ast Sn ty the: awesome resrionsibility

nF acme ero

ee - Witdcle. lor thadlee : amma 4 :

pat Co ptipcte Bey bane aiptotitcn teg 0

¥. Candelaria, 131 dara ™, ne (SD.cal 1955),

Me

i

a,

@

.

Ae

rr 4 om

4S %

is

be as

Ae LS

CaBe

a G +2 ae |

nits tht 1 ean have adap he

on Detainers.: 1d. at 18 n. 2. That:

e Si enact na cali thenteand

in intel tw Mallitate ancety Seal. at oe 8a

elsewhere. otal ef team Geoendae d State

Legislation Program. for 1958 81-91, (1967). bas ne

- endorsed . by ti American Bar: PA Pise

Rept. 467-468 (1962). Other -states, have.

selves to the: problem, {as in California : when's

makes it. mandatory that a.

federakwarden for permission to try a federal 7 one

and,zequirea:Ribibnl. of dhe tate hates, ik telah tetas »

had, within 90 daysiof consent by the federal wat

"Penal Code, § 1381,5. See generally Note, Cons

Right to: a Speedy Trigl and the Hew Rages )

18 Butgers L. Rev. 8 (1964)... ca thal ai bey

What ‘it Sa-lesinsbleipredtion: eithét'do>giie a Pielaonlie

th seahan: tage Aesladlotlen: si:dpendy tidleni densi |

the charge against him ¢an hardly: be denied. ‘The ext

EN a RE MAREE

eas aul Le ee

FAY

> a o

he beet ; ae Y nfs 4 y + tes. d 3 eS

eH His pas Z os BR. ABMS Age mio

4? ’ ¢ %ip

/ ‘ aM

zt me

e

; ; MP4

hy RU aaer

sia 5 rine»

Oey Lec ee

‘eG

m Onl. Ne

yy,

ta utes, t .

, ‘tg »

Sus

,

I diese teiuntinl dain citsiatiatinds wtiineit::

bas. at seis sinsociey aor a. wiscmemlicensh gait 4

ee iad veieveastt asians Boats 6 tht

ae chroot ween Give * N Speedy Trial to 8

bhi ig oe

ee a Ag css ohectyctt low Soab obi « cs ii :

- arrange withthe federal government or that of ‘another.

state to have @ prisoner confined elsewhere produced for

trial.on a state charge, it was under rio obligation to do so.

This is atill-the lew in'a significant number of states. Ford

v;, Presiding Judge, Twentieth Judicial Cirowit, 277 Ala: 83,

167, Bo.- 2d: 166 (1964); Ba parte Schechtel, 108. Colo--77,

82 B,2d 762 (1938); Petition of Norman, 55 Del. 109, 184

A. BV/GOI (1962) ; Evans v. Mitchell, 200 Kan. 290, 436 P.2d

408 (1968); Ruip +; Knight, 386:°8:W. 2d 170 (Ky. 1964);

' Bates v. State; Nev. ——, 436 P. 2d'27 (1968) ; Quinlan

v. Bussiere, 106:N-H. 527, 214 A.2d 877 (1965); Common.

- swoalthy, Harmon, 21 Pa. D. & C.2d 251 (Cumberland Co.

~ 1960); Barton ¥: State, 214 Tenn. 9, B71 SW 24 900 (1964) ;

: eee ipsa. A i

5) N.W.2d 70 il ine Hol, i | Minn, 74, 123 N.W.2d

presente 3 Inte Le Rose case; however; and’ the

_ ary Pai aaa’

256. Minn, 314, 98 fs

se

‘ YA ‘ :

E7 Cloner fb ino fi for pO ee

RV ITs Si hale a ins ek Ug fe es Sah . Si

1 haglden views thon, tepeneents thas Soler ‘

twalye: stated): ‘Since Arkansas broke the ice’ in 1955, ‘and

held that the state: must. exercise due diligence to attempt me

to procure a pérson from a Texhs prison for trial’ Pe

legrimi v. Wolfe, 225: Ark. 459, 283 B,W.2d162 41955),

there has been much movement,away from) the older;x

The following jurisdictions, in, addition to, Arka

hold that ‘confinement by. another jurisdiction does mgt .ex- Oe,

cuse failure tq provide « speedy trial mules the state an-

thorities have tried unsuccessfully to.obtain the prisoner

for trial. State v. Heisler, 9 Ariz, 353, 390 P.2d 846. (1964);

Barker y.. Municipal. Court, 64 Cali2d’ 806, 415. P.od 909

” (1966) ;, Dickey v. Circuit Court, 200 So0.2d.521. (Fla: 1967);

’ Richerson y. State, 91 Idaho 555,428 P.2d 61 (1967); People.

vy. Bryarly, 23, 1l.2d 313,178, N.E.2d, 326 (1961) ; Coamen-

wealth v, McGrath, 348. Mass. 748, 205 N0.24°7 (1965) ;

State y.. Patton,, 76.N.J.Super. 353, ' 184 .A.2d 655. 41962);

affirmed on opinion below, 42 N.J. 328, 200,A.2d 493 (1964); :

- People v. Winfrey, 20.N.Y.2d 138, 228 N.B.2a 808, (1967);

State v, Johnson, 13 Ohio Mise.. 19;, 281, NB2d $53 (C:P:

Hamilton Co. 1967) ; State y. Evans, —. OT, ay SOE

175 (1967); State ex tel, Predenberg v.. Byr i

¢ os eet (1963), *

aioe = At 424 (198). "Pho Ure are

-

;

\ 4

‘ \

‘?

.

te

’

’

e

.

- AJ

————— eT

‘

S

:

é

‘

.

4

\

*

‘ y,

on

G 4

e

°

‘ . .

*°

°

“> id

x é

*

‘

~~ oa eS

‘>.

sz 2

ae a ee fe ©

~

¥e

ee ae.

oT

we ae

td

with ite’ duty $b and

and authority of f the pis

- dietion and by engaging in other crimes which result in his.

- gonfinement in, another sovereign’s prison system.” State

%, Larkio, 256 Minn, 314, 315, 98 N.W.2d 70, 71 (1959). \

See also State y. ‘Clark, 392 -P.2d 539, 541 (Wyo. 1964).

The. argument i is literally untrue in many cases, since the

"gtate defendant confined in a “federal penitentiary fre-

‘ . quently will not have left the state’s jurisdiction, and indeed

very commonly. the state charge will grow out of the pre-

cise incident for which he is serving the federal. sentence.

Even where the defendant did actually,g0%o another state,

to speak of this as making the trial “impossible” is fietive

talk.” as Justice Schaefer wrote for the ‘Thinois Supreme

aie denstibationsl ate of a Rs tgial conteni-

” splates that the means that are available to meet its

: -_,Fequirements shall be utilized. * * * Although the de-

. fendant wrongfully left the jurisdiction of the court,

the prosecution, knew where he was and could have

. initiated proneedings, & return him to Illinois for °

ia é:

People’ v. Bryotly, 28 128 239, 319, 178 N.E.2d 326, 329

(1961).

oAwaeeY oye

a laces crv pioowts bas

ict anaes aang the state money for .

ortation.ofthe prisoner. This is perhaps most clearly

ted in, the Oklahoma. decisions, discussed earlier, hold-

"img that! a. federal prisoner.can obtain a trial on state

ir eaentins sercient funds to pay the cost of

fhe eden Vs: State, 369 P.2d

es ‘ew’ Gusteibea), yore v. Bate, 377 P.2d 61. (Okt

OF. $962). To’ erst er ony

aes ein aaithy |e rans

nee Mee Bs oe tte oa es

; 7 : iuiaien pie : ‘

Court should be sufficient: “We. attiainaiiaiiailiak -— =

upon constitutional rights.” . State Re tek. redenberg:* vO

Byrne, 20 Wis./2d°504, 512, 123 N.W2di 35, ' nde).

See also Note, 77 Yale LJ. 767, 773: (2968). |

Neither separately nor together ‘do ‘the fade in :

favor of the older rule justify denying a citizen, merely,

because he is in custody in another juris ion, “one of

the most basic rights preserved by. our Constitution.”

Klopfer v. Nogth ‘Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 223 (1967).

Three recent decisions of this Court seem to be enough

to settle the matter. One is the Klopfer case, just cited, in

-which the Court held that the right to a speedy trial, se-

cured by the Sixth Amendment, is bindihg op the ‘states

by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Another is Mathis

v. United States, 391 U.S.'1 (1968), with its clear implica-

tion that one in custody for one offense’ does not thereby

forfeit his constitutional rights with sheets to 52 oo ale

that may be made against him,

Most closely in point is. Barber’ vy, Page, 390° US. 719

(1968), in which the Court held that & person sonfind 3 in-

a federal prison in Texas was not “unavailable” for a state

trial in Oklahoma 80S. t make applicable the exception ‘

to the hearsay rule for testimony ata prior e8

Court: recognized that some credence had been given to the

theory pon the hearsay exception applied if 4. witness was

out of the jurisdiction since the trial court was helpless ;

to compel his. attendance. The Court ans yond thet argu- :

ment,.at 723, as follows: _.. sag?

Whatever may havebeen. the accuracy of that isles :

»? “atone time, it>is* clear: that atthe’ pFésent time in-

“¢ eneans cooperation between the States Giehadives ‘and

—

ee es Bie s Ge &

: 5 ee

ye ; Aigner Se

woot

sit Sada: tan ential the ‘Federal: Giniteainak: eit

e "egy api of ny enticing rly inthe 3

a

tA ORE 5 #4 foi vhs tes “

a

ropri ated ath cae

met ha un i in ea :

7 wreck delet teh ca

in AR Riva oat |

__ that fally fits the present case.

‘a fale tenn. Sen gale. patiociion asin, nasatiext. ‘0

pos avail themselves of either of the above alternative

v

_ tioner’s trial. The Court-of Appeals majority appears

to have reasoned that because the State would have

; had to, tuaeiod bc estctat ot Sneretions Wt: pee

“make ‘any such request. Yet as, Judge Al

| means ‘of seeking to secure “Woods’ ‘presence at peti-

> it ‘was ‘under no obligation to _

by designation, oot ts damnat blow, ths por. e

sibility‘of a refi is not the equivalent of asking and

_"Beeiving'a rebut.” | ast F.2d, at 481. ‘In short, 9, wit-

‘ RT: i% teyresvro “sae we

The ‘Constitutional: Hight te ‘Speedy "rial Has Bees

Danted to This Petitioner. pa taGh toa. gAP ammsisg \-

. ; Sie Sila ea Tray ns ok eo

If the ride eoutanaibdneds pepnertcir serait al

brief is accepted, its application to the present casdiisensy.

‘Petitionér has been denied's trial one crime allegedly

ro Se),

eure in 1940, 18 U,8.C. § 408%, by. whieh \e stale. miky

Re ph gg srl v. pinta: 7 are oe

‘N.E.2d 806 (1967), in whieh dismissal for want of pr

ae

at in , Sade Breite

nsequences ‘of difficulties of

he dateadadit as-well as the

He hig have the untram-

‘ftion and release in a manner TERE :

cpu) is below erred in demying him the reliet

- For the reasons set out above, the judgment of the Texas

reme Court should be reversed. . if ee eo