Klopfer v. North Carolina

Supreme Court of United States
386 U.S. 213 (1967)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Sixth Amendment's right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. A state may not indefinitely postpone a prosecution over the defendant's objection without justification, as this violates the right to a speedy trial.

Facts:

On February 24, 1964, Peter Klopfer, a zoology professor at Duke University, was indicted for criminal trespass for entering a restaurant.
His trial in March 1964 ended in a mistrial when the jury failed to reach a verdict.
The state solicitor (prosecutor) announced his intention to use a 'nolle prosequi with leave,' a procedure to suspend the indictment indefinitely while retaining the ability to restore it for trial at any time.
Klopfer objected to this procedure in open court.
Eighteen months after the indictment, Klopfer filed a motion to ascertain the status of his case, arguing the pending charge interfered with his professional activities and travel.
In response to Klopfer's motion, the solicitor formally moved for, and the court granted, the 'nolle prosequi with leave,' again over Klopfer's objection.

Procedural Posture:

Klopfer was indicted by a grand jury in Orange County, North Carolina, and tried in the Superior Court, a state trial court.
The trial judge declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict.
After Klopfer filed a motion demanding to know the status of his case, the trial court granted the prosecutor's motion for a 'nolle prosequi with leave,' suspending the case indefinitely.
Klopfer (appellant) appealed the trial court's order to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
The Supreme Court of North Carolina (appellee) affirmed the trial court's decision.
Klopfer (petitioner) sought and was granted a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a state's use of a 'nolle prosequi with leave' procedure, which allows a prosecutor to indefinitely postpone a prosecution without justification over the defendant's objection, violate the Sixth Amendment's right to a speedy trial as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Warren

Yes. The state's procedure of indefinitely postponing prosecution via a 'nolle prosequi with leave' violates the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, which is fundamental and applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the right to a speedy trial is as fundamental as other rights secured by the Sixth Amendment, with deep roots in English common law like the Magna Carta. The pendency of an indictment, even for a defendant who is not incarcerated, creates anxiety, subjects the accused to public scorn, and may curtail their speech and associations. Allowing a prosecutor to hold a charge over a defendant's head indefinitely, without justification, constitutes a denial of the right to a speedy trial by prolonging this oppression.

Concurring - Justice Harlan

Yes. While agreeing that the North Carolina procedure is unconstitutional, this opinion rejects the majority's 'incorporation' doctrine. Instead of applying the Sixth Amendment's speedy trial clause directly to the states, the decision should rest on the ground that this specific procedure, which allows a prosecutor to hold an unliquidated criminal charge over a person for an indeterminate period, violates the fundamental fairness required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment itself. The procedure is so inherently unfair that it cannot be constitutionally permitted, independent of any specific provision in the Bill of Rights.

Analysis:

This landmark case is a key component of the selective incorporation doctrine, making the Sixth Amendment's right to a speedy trial binding on the states. The decision significantly broadened the scope of the right, clarifying that it protects against more than just oppressive pretrial detention. It also guards against the anxiety and public stigma caused by a pending, unresolved accusation. By invalidating North Carolina's 'nolle prosequi with leave' procedure, the Court limited prosecutorial discretion, preventing prosecutors from indefinitely shelving cases and compelling them to either proceed to trial in a timely manner or dismiss the charges.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature