Case Law Assignment: Barker v. Wingo
A) Case Name and Citation:
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972)
B) Summary of the Facts:
On a murder case of two elderly people in 1958, Willie Barker and Silas Manning were arrested and awaited their trial. The Commonwealth’s tactic was to convict Manning first prior to convicting Barker, due to the lack of evidence against him, assuring a testimony against Barker there after. Manning’s prosecution was not an easy one accounting for six total trials and delaying Barkers. Two of those six trials resulted in hung juries, another two in reversals, and the last two in convictions (one per victim). As to Barker, a total of 16 continuances awaited him as Manning’s case was in process and finalized.
C) Summary
…show more content…
As Manning’s prosecution was in process, the state continued to postpone Barker’s trial to the following consecutive term. In June of 1959, Barker was released from jail after paying a $5,000 bond and was free for the first 11 re-schedules of his trial, which he did not object to. It wasn’t until the 12th continuance that Barker’s defense counsel filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, but it was denied. Barker’s trial was finally set to take place on March19, 1963, but was once again re-scheduled due to the main prosecution witness, an ex-sheriff who was the chief investigating officer’s illness. At last after two more continuances, Barker’s trial was set for October 9, 1963. Once again, Barker filed a motion to dismiss the indictment stating that his 6th amendment right to a speedy trial had be violated, but his motion was denied and was given a life sentence. Barker then filed an appeal against his conviction and this time the court affirmed, followed by a petition for habeas corpus, which was rejected. In the appeal trial, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the District court in ruling that Barker had waived his right to a speedy trial since he showed no interest in his trial being postponed and did not object to his continuances. The court also held that no prejudice resulted and that the delay reasons were