Wilkins v. United States
| Decision Date | 11 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 20676.,20676. |
| Citation | 129 US App. DC 397,395 F.2d 620 |
| Parties | Connie WILKINS, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Peter L. Truebner, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. William W. Greenhalgh, Washington, D. C. (both appointed by this court) was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. William G. Reynolds, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and Joel D. Blackwell, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Geoffrey M. Alprin, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before BURGER, McGOWAN and LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judges.
Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied July 3, 1968.
This is an appeal from convictions of robbery, 22 D.C.CODE § 2901 (1967), assault with a dangerous weapon, 22 D.C. CODE § 502 (1967), unauthorized use of a vehicle, 22 D.C.CODE § 2204 (1967), and interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle, 18 U.S.C. § 2312 (1964). The primary issue on appeal concerns the alleged violation of Appellant's sixth amendment right to a speedy trial.
Appellant was arrested on May 11, 1965; his trial occurred in October, 1966, some sixteen and one-half months later. While the time lapse in this case was indeed long, it is but one factor to be considered in the overall determination of the right to a speedy trial. Other factors of importance are the reasons for delay, the diligence of prosecution and defense counsel, and possible prejudice to the defendant. Hedgepeth v. United States, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 291, 364 F.2d 684 (1966).
The record reveals that the delays in this case were for varied reasons. The major cause appears to be the preferences given to jail cases in a period when the criminal docket is inordinately heavy in relation to judicial manpower. In the instant case, Appellant remained at liberty under bond for most of the time here involved. We have only recently indicated that court preference to cases in which a defendant was incarcerated pending trial is appropriate. Dockery v. United States, 129 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 393 F.2d 352 (decided January 31, 1968). As to the prejudicial aspect, since Appellant remained free on bond and since the record does not demonstrate any effort on his part to advance trial, perhaps in light of the fact that the instant charges were but one series of charges pending against him,1 we find no prejudice to the Appellant. The only contention of prejudice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Dunn
...administration of justice has dictated that certain priorities be followed in dealing with criminal cases. In Wilkins v. United States, 129 U.S.App.D.C. 397, 395 F. 2d 620 (1968), we allowed a conviction to stand where there had been a 16½-month delay which had been occasioned by a policy o......
-
United States v. Lynch
...(footnote omitted). See also United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116, 120, 86 S.Ct. 773, 15 L.Ed.2d 627 (1966); Wilkins v. United States, 129 U.S.App.D.C. 397, 395 F.2d 620 (1968); Hedgepeth v. United States, 124 U.S. App.D.C. 291, 364 F.2d 684 We do not suggest that lengthy periods of time de......
-
Hodges v. United States
...v. United States, 326 F.2d 481, 486-487 (8 Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 947, 84 S.Ct. 1355, 12 L.Ed.2d 309; Wilkins v. United States, 395 F.2d 620 (D.C.Cir. 1968). 2. Criminal Rule 48(b). If we focus on Rule 48(b), rather than on the Sixth Amendment, our standard then is whether Judge......
-
Brooks v. United States, 19965.
...of his state trial. See Von Feldt v. United States, supra; Mack v. United States, 326 F.2d 481 (8 Cir. 1964); Wilkins v. United States, 129 U.S.App.D.C. 397, 395 F.2d 620 (1968); cf. Smith v. Hooey, supra. See also Hodges v. United States, 408 F.2d 543 (8 Cir. We turn then to petitioner's c......