Citation network
Dickey Vs. Florida
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 25, 1970
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 30 (1970) U.S. Supreme Court Dickey v. FloridaSearch
-
U.S. 30 (1970) Dickey v. FloridaSearch
-
for one crime has no right to demand his constitutionally guaranteed right to a speedy trial on another charge. Dickey v. CircuitSearch
-
that the right of the petitioner under the Federal Constitution did not arise until this Court's decision in Klopfer v. NorthSearch
-
Carolina, 386 U. S. 213 (1967), and that not until Smith v. HooeySearch
-
S. 37 State press for trial of a defendant in custody in another jurisdiction. As noted by the Court in Smith v. HooeySearch
-
Under Florida law, this step tolled the statute of limitations. See Rosengarten v. StateSearch
-
Dubbs v. LehmanSearch
-
State v. EmanuelSearch
-
Amendment, the latter being applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Klopfer v. NorthSearch
-
Cf. Regina v. RobinsSearch
-
provision of the Sixth Amendment. See my concurring opinion in Klopfer v. NorthSearch
-
Carolina, 386 U. S. 213 , 386 U. S. 226 (1967), and my separate opinion in Smith v. HooeySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, see, e.g., my dissenting opinion in Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
in this instance. MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL joins, concurring. I In Klopfer v. NorthSearch
-
delayed under the test of due process applicable to the States prior to Klopfer. See, e.g., Beasley v. PitchessSearch
-
Von Cseh v. FaySearch
-
Germany v. HudspethSearch
-
dealt at any length with the right, and each was decided with little analysis of its scope and content. See Beavers v. HaubertSearch
-
Pollard v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 116 (1966). Klopfer itself attempted no extensive analysis, nor did our later decision, Smith v. HooeySearch
-
Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
ability of the accused to defend himself, so it may reduce the capacity of the government to prove its case. See Ponzi v. FessendenSearch
-
by penalizing official abuse of the criminal process and discouraging official lawlessness. See, e.g., United States v. ProvooSearch
-
Authorities agree that delay between indictment and trial is subject to the speedy trial safeguard, e.g., Lucas v. UnitedSearch
-
F.2d 500, 502 (C.A. 9th Cir.1966), and there is substantial authority that the right attaches upon arrest, e.g., Hardy v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 364, 365, 343 F.2d 233, 234 (1964). But see, e.g., Reece v. UnitedSearch
-
Clause applies to intervals between separate indictments or between separate trials on the same charge, e.g., Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
arguendo, but has not decided, that the interval between judgment and sentencing is governed by the clause, Pollard v. UnitedSearch
-
Welsh v. UnitedSearch
-
right to speedy trial does not apply to delays that occur before the defendant's arrest or indictment, e.g., Parker v. UnitedSearch
-
Terlikowski v. UnitedSearch
-
for example, in Escobedo v. IllinoisSearch
-
provides the exclusive control over governmental delay prior to arrest or indictment. See, e.g., United States v. PanczkoSearch
-
coextensive with the limits set by the Speedy Trial Clause. Judge Wright, concurring in the result in Nickens v. UnitedSearch
-
Smith v. UnitedSearch
-
or from delay occasioned by his incompetence to stand trial, e.g., United States v. DavisSearch
-
or inaction -- has been construed as an implied relinquishment of the right to speedy trial, e.g., United States v. LustmanSearch
-
be welcomed by an accused, especially if he greatly fears the possible consequences of his trial. See United States v. ChaseSearch
-
been categorically rejected by this Court when other fundamental rights are at stake. Over 30 years ago, in Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
Aetna Ins. Co. v. KennedySearch
-
Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. PublicSearch
-
United States v. DillonSearch
-
it covers that of court personnel as well, e.g., Pollard v. UnitedSearch
-
Marshall v. UnitedSearch
-
government to provide these agencies and the judiciary with the resources necessary for speedy trials. See, e.g., King v. UnitedSearch
-
is unjustifiable. Pollard v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Dickey v. FloridaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial