To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




United States v. Marion

Citation. United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 92 S. Ct. 455, 30 L. Ed. 2d 468, 1971)
Law Students: Don’t know your Studybuddy Pro login? Register here

Brief Fact Summary.

A period of three years lapsed between the end of their crime and their indictment.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

“The Sixth Amendment speedy trial provision has no application until the putative defendant in some way becomes an ‘accused.’”


Defendants alleged that their Sixth Amendment right a speedy trial was violated because it was three years between the end of their criminal scheme and their indictment.


“[W]hether dismissal of a federal indictment was constitutionally required by reason of a period of three years between the occurrence of the alleged criminal acts and the filing of the indictment.”


No. The defendants in this case relied heavily on the possibility of prejudice. The Supreme Court agreed that “inordinate delay may impair a defendant’s ability to present an effective defense.” However, the greater concern protected by a speedy trial is that “arrest.

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following