Facts of the Case

Provided by Oyez

The State of North Carolina charged Peter Klopfer with criminal trespass when he participated in a civil rights demonstration at a restaurant. At trial, the jury could not reach a verdict. The Superior Court judge continued the case twice when the state moved for a nolle prosequi with leave. This would allow the state to suspend their prosecution indefinitely and return the case to the docket in the future. Klopfer objected, arguing that the motion violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, but the judge granted the state’s request. On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed, holding that the right to a speedy trial does not include the right to compel the state to prosecute.

Questions

  1. Does the nolle prosequi deny Klopfer his constitutional right to a speedy trial?

Conclusions

  1. Yes. In a unanimous decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the majority opinion reversing the lower court. The Supreme Court held that indefinitely suspending a trial violates a defendant’s right to a speedy trial. The Court also held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Sixth Amendment to the states. The Court noted that almost every state has rejected the Supreme Court of North Carolina’s reasoning. Justice John M. Harlan concurred in the result, but argued that incorporating the Sixth Amendment is not necessary. He based his decision solely on the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Potter Stewart also concurred in the result.