Klopfer v. North Carolina
 | |
| Klopfer v. North Carolina | |
| Reference: 386 U.S. 213 | |
| Term: 1967 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: December 8, 1966 Decided: March 13, 1967 | |
| Outcome | |
| North Carolina Supreme Court reversed | |
| Majority | |
| Earl Warren • Hugo Black • William Douglas • Tom Clark • William Brennan • Byron White • Abe Fortas | |
| Concurring | |
| Potter Stewart • John Harlan II | |
Klopfer v. North Carolina is a case decided on March 13, 1967, by the United States Supreme Court that incorporated the right to a speedy trial of the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to states. The case concerned an individual's trial being indefinitely suspended in North Carolina. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court.[1][2]
Why it matters: The Supreme Court's decision in this case established that individuals' Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial is applicable in state courts. To read more about the impact of Klopfer v. North Carolina click here.
Background
Peter Klopfer was charged with criminal trespass after participating in a civil rights demonstration in North Carolina. The case ended in a mistrial because the jury could not reach a verdict, which led the state to motion for nolle prosequi with leave. This meant that the state could indefinitely suspend prosecution and place the case back on the docket at a later date. Klopfer objected to the motion, arguing that it violated his right to a speedy trial, pursuant to the Sixth Amendment.
The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state and held that nolle prosequi did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights.[1][2]
Oral argument
Oral argument was held on December 8, 1966. The case was decided on March 13, 1967.[1]
Decision
The Supreme Court decided unanimously to reverse the decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court. Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the court. Justices Potter Stewart and John Harlan II concurred in the result.[2]
Opinions
Opinion of the court
Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the court, argued that the state court's motion to indefinitely suspend Klopfer's trial violated his right to a speedy trial. Brennan contended that suspending trial would also prolong the oppression he would experience from being publicly accused of a crime. Brennan also argued that the right to a speedy trial was a fundamental right and that it was applied to the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[2]
| “ | We, too, believe that the position taken by the court below was erroneous. The petitioner is not relieved of the limitations placed upon his liberty by this prosecution merely because its suspension permits him to go 'whithersoever he will.' The pendency of the indictment may subject him to public scorn and deprive him of employment, and almost certainly will force curtailment of his speech, associations and participation in unpopular causes. By indefinitely prolonging this oppression, as well as the 'anxiety and concern accompanying public accusation,' the criminal procedure condoned in this case by the Supreme Court of North Carolina clearly denies the petitioner the right to a speedy trial which we hold is guaranteed to him by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.[3] | ” |
| —Earl Warren, majority opinion in Klopfer v. North Carolina[2] | ||
Concurring opinion
Justice John Harlan II wrote an opinion concurring in the result. Harlan agreed with the decision of the majority, but posited that it should be based solely on the Fourteenth Amendment. He argued that it was not necessary to incorporate the Sixth Amendment.[2]
| “ | While I entirely agree with the result reached by the Court, I am unable to subscribe to the constitutional premises upon which that result is based -- quite evidently the viewpoint that the Fourteenth Amendment 'incorporates' or 'absorbs,' as such, all or some of the specific provisions of the Bill of Rights. I do not believe that this is sound constitutional doctrine. See my opinion concurring in the result in Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400, 380 U. S. 408.
|
” |
| —John Harlan II, opinion in Klopfer v. North Carolina[2] | ||
Justice Potter Stewart also concurred in the result.
Impact
| Federalism |
|---|
|
| •Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism |
- See also: Incorporation
Klopfer v. North Carolina established that the right to a speedy trial of the Sixth Amendment applies to state court criminal proceedings.[2]
The decision in this case was responsible for incorporating the right to a speedy trial to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. Incorporation is the process of binding a fundamental right onto the states through a Supreme Court decision.[4]
See also
External links
- Full text of case syllabus and opinions (Justia)
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Search Google News for this topic
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Oyez, "Klopfer v. North Carolina," accessed August 25, 2022
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Justia, "Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967)," accessed August 25, 2022
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Oxford Reference, "Klopfer v. North Carolina," accessed August 25, 2022
| ||||||||||||||||||||
