Reed v. Farley

RESPONDENT: Farley, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison, et al.
LOCATION: Aware Woman Center for Choice

DOCKET NO.: 93-5418
DECIDED BY: Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

CITATION: 512 US 339 (1994)
ARGUED: Mar 28, 1994
DECIDED: Jun 20, 1994

Arend J. Abel - on behalf of the Respondents
Jerold S. Solovy - on behalf of the Petitioner

Facts of the case


Media for Reed v. Farley

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 28, 1994 in Reed v. Farley

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - June 20, 1994 in Reed v. Farley

Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

The second case I have to announce is Reed against Farley.

This case concerns the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, a compact among 48 states, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Government.

Under the agreement, the trial of a prisoner transfers on one participating jurisdiction to another is to commence within 120 days of the prisoner's arrival in the second jurisdiction unless for good cause, a postponement is granted.

If trial does not occur within the time prescribed, the agreement cause for dismissal of the prosecution with prejudice.

In April 1983, petitioner, Orrin Scott Reed, was transferred from a federal prison in Indiana to state custody to face trial on state charges.

Trial was originally set for 19 days beyond the 120-day period and was subsequently postponed for an additional 35 days.

Reed filed many pretrial motions but did not specifically object to the trial date until four days after the 120-day period expired.

At that time, he sought dismissal of the charges on the ground that the Trial Court failed to observe the 120-day limit.

The Trial Court denied Reed's request because the judge had been unaware of the time limit and Reed had not earlier asked for a trial date in advance of the one set in open court by the judge.

After he was tried and convicted in October 1983, Reed unsuccessfully pursued an appeal and sought post conviction relief in Indiana's court.

He then petitioned for a federal writ of habeas corpus.

The District Court denied relief and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

The Chief Justice and Justice O'Connor have joined by opinion which we reasoned that habeas review of a State Court's failure to observe the 120-day rule is not available when the defendant registered no objection to the trial date at the time it was set and suffered no prejudice in presenting his defense stemming from the delay commencement.

Justice Scalia has filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment joined by Justice Thomas, they withhold without qualification that federal habeas review does not extend to cases of this order.

Justice Blackmun has filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Kennedy.