Barker v. Wingo
United States Supreme Court
407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed 101 (1972)
- Written by Sarah Venti, JD
Facts
Two suspects were arrested for killing an older couple. The state had a stronger case against Manning so it planned to try Manning first so that he would then testify at Barker’s (defendant) trial. The state encountered many problems with Manning’s trial. After six trials and four years, Manning was finally convicted of both murders. During this time, the state continued to request continuances in Barker’s trial. In all, it made 16 such requests. Upon the state’s twelfth request, Barker filed a motion to dismiss the indictment but his motion was denied and the continuance was granted. Barker then objected to the state’s fifteenth request for a continuance. By this time, Manning’s trials were over but the request was denied and the continuance granted because the state’s chief investigating officer was sick. The witness was still unable to testify when the new trial date came around so an additional continuance was granted. Barker again requested that the indictment be dismissed, specifying that his right to a speedy trial had been violated. His motion was denied. Finally the trial commenced and Barker was convicted. The state court of appeals affirmed the conviction. Barker petitioned the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for habeas corpus but the court ruled that he had waived his right to a speedy trial for the entire period before he objected to the state’s fifteenth request for a continuance. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Powell, J.)
Concurrence (White, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.