Klopfer v. North Carolina/Concurrence Harlan

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Court Documents
Case Syllabus
Opinion of the Court
Concurring Opinions
Stewart
Harlan

United States Supreme Court

386 U.S. 213

Klopfer  v.  North Carolina

 Argued: Dec. 8, 1966. --- Decided: March 13, 1967


Mr. Justice HARLAN, concurring in the result.

While I entirely agree with the result reached by the Court, I am unable to subscribe to the constitutional premises upon which that result is based-quite evidently the viewpoint that the Fourteenth Amendment 'incorporates' or 'absorbs' as such all or some of the specific provisions of the Bill of Rights. I do not believe that this is sound constitutional doctrine. See my opinion concurring in the result in Pointer v. State of Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 408, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1070, 13 L.Ed.2d 923.

I would rest decision of this case not on the 'speedy trial' provision of the Sixth Amendment, but on the ground that this unusual North Carolina procedure, which in effect allows state prosecuting officials to put a person under the cloud of an unliquidated criminal charge for an indeterminate period, violates the requirement of fundamental fairness assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To support that conclusion I need only refer to the traditional concepts of due process set forth in the opinion of THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

Notes[edit]

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse