Dillingham v. United States
| Citation | 423 U.S. 64,96 S.Ct. 303,46 L.Ed.2d 205 |
| Decision Date | 01 December 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-6738,74-6738 |
| Parties | Edward Earl DILLINGHAM v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
An interval of 22 months elapsed between petitioner's arrest and indictment, and a further period of 12 months between his indictment and trial, upon charges of automobile theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2312, and 2313. The District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied petitioner's motions made immediately after arraignment and posttrial to dismiss the indictment on the ground that petitioner had been denied a speedy trial in violation of the Sixth Amendment. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that under United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 92 S.Ct. 455, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971), the 22-month "pre-indictment delay . . . is not to be counted for the purposes of a Sixth Amendment motion absent a showing of actual prejudice." 502 F.2d 1233, 1235 (1974). This reading of Marion was incorrect. Marion presented the question whether in assessing a denial of speedy trial claim, there was to be counted a delay between the end of the criminal scheme charged and the indictment of a suspect not arrested or otherwise charged previous to the indictment. The Court held: 404 U.S., at 313, 92 S.Ct., at 459. In contrast, the Government constituted petitioner an "accused" when it arrested him and thereby commenced its prosecution of him. Marion made this clear, id., at 320-321, 92 S.Ct., at 463, where the Court stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCarthy v. Manson
...United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 320-321, 92 S.Ct. 455, 463, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971). See also Dillingham v. United States, 423 U.S. 64, 65, 96 S.Ct. 303, 304, 46 L.Ed.2d 205 (1975). Thus, in the present case, petitioner's right to a speedy trial attached on April 5, 1975 when he was ar......
-
U.S. v. Mays
...F.2d 1273, 1275-1276 (6th Cir. 1973); United States v. Carey, 475 F.2d 1019, 1020 (9th Cir. 1973); cf., Dillingham v. United States, 423 U.S. 64, 65, 96 S.Ct. 303, 46 L.Ed.2d 205 (1975).5 The Court also decided the applicability of the Sixth Amendment guarantees to the pre-indictment period......
-
United States v. Gouveia, 83-128
...United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 788-789, 97 S.Ct. 2044, 2047-2048, 52 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977); Dillingham v. United States, 423 U.S. 64, 96 S.Ct. 303, 46 L.Ed.2d 205 (1975) (per curiam); United States v. Marion, 404 U.S., at 320, 92 S.Ct., at 463, but we have never held that the right to......
-
Graves v. United States
...a formal accusation. See MacDonald, supra, 456 U.S. at 6-7, 102 S.Ct. at 1500-1502; Dillingham v. United States, 423 U.S. 64, 64-65, 96 S.Ct. 303, 303-304, 46 L.Ed.2d 205 (1975) (per curiam). Appellant was arrested October 16, 1979, and his trial began November 5, 1981. Thus, as the trial c......
-
U.s. Supreme Court Decisions: 1975-1976
...Stone v. Powell, infra, I.D.1. C. Procedure at Trial 1. Speedy Trial a. Post-Arrest/Pre-Indictment Delay Dillingham v. United States, 423 U.S. 64, 95 S.Ct. 303, 46 L.Ed.2d 205 (1975). In a per curiam decision, the Court held that a 22-month delay between the defendant's arrest and indictmen......
-
Pronouncements of the U.s. Supreme Court Relating to the Criminal Law Field: 1985-1986
...trial right for post-arrest, preindictment delay. The requirement of "actual prejudice" was rejected in Dillingham v. United States, 423 U.S. 64 (1975). The main reason for the delay occasioned by the interlocutory appeals in the present case was the Ninth Circuit's failure to act promptly.......