Klopfer v. North Carolina

Background

A man indicted in North Carolina for criminal trespass faced repeated delays. He was a professor at Duke University. After a March 1964 jury failed to reach a verdict, the prosecutor sought an order called a "nolle prosequi with leave" that lets the State remove the case from the calendar but later restore it. Despite the defendant's objections and a motion asking when he would be tried, the trial judge allowed the State to enter the nolle prosequi with leave in August 1965, leaving the indictment pending for many months.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether a State may, over an accused’s objection, indefinitely postpone prosecution by using this device. Chief Justice Warren held that the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial applies against the States and that an open-ended nolle prosequi with leave that keeps charges hanging violates that right. The Court emphasized the historical and constitutional roots of speedy-trial guarantees and rejected the state court's view that the prosecutor’s discretion alone could justify indefinite postponement.

Real world impact

The ruling prevents states from using open-ended postponements to keep people under the cloud of criminal accusation without justification. It recognizes practical harms: interference with work, travel, speech, associations, and public reputation. The decision reversed the state court’s judgment and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, meaning the outcome could change depending on how the case is handled next.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Harlan agreed with the result but would rely on the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process fairness standard rather than incorporation of the Sixth Amendment.