Moore v. Arizona
Headline: Court vacates Arizona ruling and remands, rejecting requirement that defendants prove trial-prejudice before a speedy-trial violation; protects jailed people awaiting extradition and focuses review on delay reasons.
Holding: The Court held that Arizona’s high court wrongly required proof of trial prejudice, vacated the judgment, and remanded for reassessment of an incarcerated person’s speedy-trial claim under proper balancing standards.
- Prevents courts from insisting on proof of trial-related harm before finding a speedy-trial violation.
- Requires states to explain delays and diligently bring incarcerated people to trial.
- Prompts reassessment when witnesses die, disappear, or are deported during long delays.
Summary
Background
An incarcerated man serving time in California was charged with murder in Arizona and spent nearly three years waiting for trial. He repeatedly demanded that Arizona either extradite him or drop a detainer, and 28 months after his first demand he was finally tried. Before trial he filed a state habeas claim saying his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to a speedy trial had been violated. The Arizona Supreme Court denied relief, saying the defense had to show actual prejudice at trial and noting the petitioner had a preliminary hearing and could subpoena witnesses; one key witness had been deported 18 months after the charge.
Reasoning
The Court explained that prior decisions do not require a defendant to prove affirmative trial prejudice before finding a speedy-trial violation. Instead, judges must balance several related factors together: the length of the delay, the reason for it, whether the accused asserted the right, and any prejudice. The opinion rejected the Arizona court’s narrow reading of Barker and emphasized the State’s duty to make a diligent, good-faith effort to bring an incarcerated person to trial. The Court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for reassessment under the correct standards from Smith, Barker, and Dickey.
Real world impact
The decision means courts must weigh delay reasons and other harms, not just trial-focused prejudice, when prisoners wait long periods for out-of-state prosecution. The ruling is not a final merits decision; the Arizona Supreme Court must re-evaluate the claim under the proper balancing test, so the outcome could still change.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?