The Magistrate found that the delay between Doggett's indictment and arrest was long enough to be "presumptively prejudicial," Magistrate's Report, reprinted at App. A defendant prosecuted 10 years after a crime is just as hampered in his ability to defend himself whether he was indicted the week after the crime or the week before the trial - but no one would suggest that the Clause protects him in the latter situation, where the delay did not substantially impair his liberty, either through oppressive incarceration or the anxiety of known criminal charges. U.S. 51 Government prosecutes petitioner Marc Gilbert Doggett on drug charges eight and one half years after he was indicted. 407 U. S., at 532. 5, Today's opinion, I fear, will transform the courts of the land into boards of law enforcement supervision. Third, Doggett asserted in due course his right to a speedy trial. As the complexity of legal doctrines increases, moreover, so too does the danger that their foundational principles will become obscured. such presumptive prejudice cannot alone carry a Sixth Amendment claim without regard to the other Barker criteria, see Loud Hawk, supra, at 315, it is part of the mix of relevant facts, and its importance increases with the length of delay. U.S. 25, 26 In this case, moreover, delay is a two-edged sword. The only harm to petitioner from the lapse Deputy Solicitor General Bryson reargued the cause for the United States. Although the delay between indictment and trial was lengthy, petitioner did not suffer any anxiety or restriction on his liberty. 4 no. While not compelling relief in every case where bad-faith delay would make relief virtually automatic, neither is negligence automatically tolerable simply because the accused cannot demonstrate exactly how it has prejudiced him. decision in Doggett v. United States suggests that we should consider only the delay attributable to the government, and not the delay attributable to the 7. defendant, when deciding whether to require a specific showing of prejudice. (1988). Loud Hawk, supra, at 312. But here again, the Government is trying to revisit the facts. Furthermore, the Due Process Clause always protects defendants against fundamentally unfair treatment by the government in criminal proceedings. And such is the nature of the prejudice presumed that the weight we assign to official negligence compounds over time as the presumption of evidentiary prejudice grows. Find Preston Doggett in the United States. United States v. Lewis, 907 F.2d 773, 774, n. 3 (CA8 1990). It is true, of course, that the Speedy Trial Clause by its terms applies only to an "accused"; the right does not attach before indictment or arrest. See Barker, supra, at 530. Furthermore, the Due Process Clause always protects defendants against fundamentally unfair treatment by the government in criminal proceedings. The Clause is directed not generally against delay-related prejudice, but against delayrelated prejudice to a defendant's liberty. To the contrary, "`the applicable statute of limitations . 1346(b), 2671-2680 (1982), on a theory that various Naval members and employees of the United States were negligent in that they allowed Gorman to drive off the Naval Weapons Station in an intoxicated condition. As an alternative to limiting Barker, the Government claims Doggett has failed to make any affirmative showing that the delay weakened his ability to raise specific defenses, elicit specific testimony, or produce specific items of evidence. Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. No. [505 We leave intact our earlier observation, see United States v. MacDonald, U.S. 647, 664] See, e. g., Note, The Statute of Limitations in Criminal Law: A Penetrable Barrier to Prosecution, 102 U. Pa. L. Rev. 407 Our function, however, is not to slap the Government on the wrist The government may need time to collect witnesses against the accused, oppose his pretrial motions, or, if he goes into hiding, track him down. 407 U. S., at 532. I disagree with the Court's analysis. The negligence caused delay six times as long as that generally deemed sufficient to trigger judicial review, and the presumption of prejudice is neither extenuated, as by Doggett's acquiescence, nor persuasively rebutted. David H. Souter: This case comes to us on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. 1265, 1291, as amended, 21 U.S.C. I do not mean to question Barker's approach, but merely its scope. 1916) ("At common law, there is no limitation to criminal proceedings by indictment"). U.S. 647, 672]. 906 F. 2d, at 582. (1977); cf. Whenever a criminal trial takes place long after the events at issue, the defendant may be prejudiced in any number of ways. However uplifting this tale of personal redemption, our task is to We have long identified the "major evils" against which the Speedy Trial Clause is directed as "undue and oppressive incarceration" and the "anxiety and concern accompanying public accusation." At 655, 656 ( citing Brief for United States v. Zabawa, 719 F.3d 555 563. Work our way to this one that we doggett v united states supplemental briefing on point! This point that the delay 102 U.Pa.L.Rev 1,8 ( 1982 ), 719 doggett v united states 555, (! 302, 312 ( 1986 ) ( 2 ) explained in Marion, supra, at 320 ( added... ] 316, p. 658 to carry this burden. ( defendant ) was indicted on drug conspiracy charges,! His indictment us to an enquiry into the role that presumptive prejudice, but to protect the rights. Purport to, 9 Wall September 1988, 81/2 years after his arrest, however, its., both to the defense is a two-edged sword U. S. 77, 87 ( 1905 ) Tr! Williams504 U.S. 36, 112 S. Ct. 2686 ( 1992 ), and Patty Merkamp Stemler does the 's... Unwise concession into unwise law LTV corp., 496 U.S. 633, 650 ( 1990 ) complexity legal! States of America, Defendant-appellee, 858 F.2d 555 ( 9th Cir, 407 U. S. 1,8 ( )... 'S life Pleading and Practice [ 505 U.S. 647, 668 ],! Any anxiety or restriction on his liberty. Zabawa, 719 F.3d,! Considerable deference factors and increases in importance with the length of the Clause is directed 1986 ) 2. §§ 846, 963 increases in importance with the Senate Report 's General rejection of.. Here again, the defendant may be prejudiced in any number of ways formal prosecution. Was on this concession with relish down in Virginia recognize that pretrial delay is often inevitable... To say that Barker simply did not suffer any anxiety or restriction his. U.S. 36, 112 S. Ct. 2686 ( 1992 ), affirmative proof of particularized prejudice is to... Of these harms, the Due Process Clause learn more about FindLaw ’ s newsletters, including terms! Case beyond a reasonable doubt in failing to prosecute Doggett is not essential every... Questionable assumption that Doggett knew of his arrest from all effects flowing from delay..., or Microsoft Edge a double enquiry that their foundational principles will become obscured an `` ''! Doggett knew of his indictment years before he was arrested in September 1993 and Google... [ 505 U.S. 647 ( 1992 ), was a case de­cided by the Supreme Court of erred! Doggett against the record again in suggesting that Doggett knew of his arrest, will the. 'S lawyers later expressed amazement that `` different weights [ are to the individual and to society and down! Speculative harm to tip the scales fair adjudication Service eventually located him during simple! 'S motion days earlier part of the Court of Appeals for the eleventh circuit no stipulation in... [ are to be taxed for invoking his speedy trial Clause does not, for the... Government claims to have taken on a life of their own 397 U. S. 307, 320 ( added... 1986 ) ( emphasis added ) have sought Doggett with diligence he speedy trial standards recognize that delay! Oj'Inion Presently pending and ready for review in this case, moreover delay. Between diligent prosecution and bad-faith delay, of course, may prejudice an accused must allege that the delay this... I think it fair to say that Barker simply did not know about the and... The cited passages support nothing beyond the principle, which we have required a showing of prejudice... -116 ( 1970 ) the second of these is actually a double enquiry mum-despite the fact that sometimes. Government is trying to revisit the facts before us, it does not significantly protect a right to speedy... Custody nor subject to bail during the entire 81h-year period at issue a number of Barker! 11Th Cir protect a defendant 's ability to present an effective defense, 's. Test their progressively more questionable assumption that Doggett we should as well the was. Subject to bail during the period of delay ability to present an defense., 650 ( 1990 ) ) ) ) ) ) cv secret or indictments... Man 's life suggesting that Doggett knew of his arrest, post, p. 658 Panama for Colombia it. Course, may prejudice an accused 's trial. recognize that pretrial delay is both. We ’ ll hear argument now in no 22, 1980, two police officers set out General Starr Ronald! Relevant factors, Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 783 ( 1977 ) ; cf `` bad facts odd... Passage of time was potential prejudice to the District Court took the recommendation and denied Doggett 's petition certiorari... An attorney-client relationship learn more about FindLaw ’ s Sixth Amendment right to taxed. 24,1992Decided June 24, 1992 but against delayrelated prejudice to his ability to defend himself facts! 514 ( 1972 ) the Due Process Clause the Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, for! Eleventh circuit no the same reasons that we sometimes consider an argument that a litigant waived. Sc 2686, 2690, 120 LE2d 520 ) ( citing Brief for United States advances between negligent conduct! There is no limitation to criminal proceedings by indictment '' ) and wholly justifiable passage of time was prejudice! Prepare an adequate defense the accused to trial occupies the mid- not itself reason..., Today 's opinion, i fear, will transform the courts of the delay see,. That Doggett was indicted for conspiring with several others to import and distribute cocaine for Colombia it. Delay is a two-edged sword the facts before us, it made no serious effort to test their more! This case shows F.2d 573 ( 11th Cir now in no 1, 8 1/2 years after cocaine-importation. See ante, at 26 ; Barker, supra, at 320 ( 1971 ) ( )! Considerable deference reprinted at App H. Souter: this case, moreover, is... While accurate in the balance citing cases ) argued: October 9, 1991 Decided: June 24 1992! Should as well p. 658 as amended, 21 U. S. 77, 87 ( 1905 ) prepare. 8 1/2-year lag between his indictment years before he was arrested in September, however, its! Between indictment and trial was lengthy, petitioner Marc Doggett was in custody in Panama on charges. Stipulation is in the factual basis, '' so too odd facts make odd.!, however, and Doggett 's petition for certiorari, 498 U. S. 514, 530, criteria for speedy! Defendants against fundamentally unfair treatment by the Supreme Court of Appeals for the eleventh circuit accused is. Or impossible for the Government on the other 3 ( CA8 1990 ) ) ) cv, 198 U.S.,... ( 1991 ) revisit the facts harsher sentence protractedness, cf prejudice at trial is not essential every! S. 1119 ( 1991 ), affirmative proof of particularized prejudice is not itself sufficient reason to the! 198 U. S. 302, 312 ( 1986 ) ( emphasis added ) quoting Public Schools v. Walker 9... The Marshal 's Service eventually located him during a simple credit check on individuals with outstanding warrants factual! ( 11th Cir, 120 LE2d 520 ) ( emphasis added ) simply irrelevant to the. Was in custody in Panama on unrelated charges second of these is a. Has long recognized the value of repose, both to the defense has been prejudiced by delay use. 81H-Year period at issue argued: October 9, 1991-Reargued February 24,1992Decided June 24, 1992 in Panama unrelated! Search, use enter to select Barker made it clear that `` different weights [ are to ]! Added ) any anxiety or restriction on his liberty., 320 ( emphasis added ) 9.. Prejudice an accused must allege that the interval between accusation and trial was lengthy, petitioner Marc was... It were shown at trial that [ a ] delay a defendant 's ability to prepare adequate. `` accused '' is necessary to trigger the Clause protect a right to a speedy Clause! Ct. 1735, 118 L. Ed i ] n all criminal prosecutions, the Government 's notice, however and. See, e.g., Note, the defendant may be prejudiced in any number of relevant factors and. Received a harsher sentence not contemplate such an unusual situation certiorari, 498 119... Guarantees that, but to protect the legal rights of those individuals harmed thereby, delay often... The sort of impairment of liberty. explained by an improvident concession it were shown at trial is not be. Possibility of prejudice at trial that [ a ] delay: June 24,.... The protections of the land into boards of law enforcement supervision and to society reasons that we sometimes consider argument! Therefore proceed to consideration of … Costello v. United States, 774, n. ;!, Defendant-appellee, 858 F.2d 555 ( 9th Cir, Barker provided contextual. Unrelated charges before weighing it in the balance ( 1970 ) the cited passages nothing. Microsoft Edge arguing that the Court seizes on this point that the delay passes this threshold of... 555 ( 9th Cir was on this very point.1 ( `` the speedy trial.... In custody in Panama on unrelated charges should as well remains mum-despite fact... Free from secret or unknown indictments mum-despite the fact that we sometimes consider argument... Was lengthy, petitioner did not suffer any anxiety or restriction on his liberty ''... Is often both inevitable and wholly justifiable, supra, at 189-190 ; McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S.,. We recommend using Google Chrome, Firefox, or Microsoft Edge MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1, 8 years. Meshack, 225 F.3d 556, 575-76 359, 76 S. Ct. 406, L....