Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky
- Decided
- February 28, 1973
- Docket
- 71-6516
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,787 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that Alabama prisoner under Kentucky indictment may file a habeas action under § 2241 seeking to enforce his constitutional right to a speedy trial — Montez v. McKinna (2000)
- holding that a district court in Kentucky had personal jurisdiction over a case filed by an inmate in Alabama — (untitled) (1998)
- holding that a habeas petitioner had properly exhausted his speedy trial claim because it was distinct from the criminal prosecution — Erick Arevalo v. Vicki Hennessy (2018)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Me. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner is presently serving a sentence in an Alabama prison. He applied to the District Court for the Western District of Kentucky for a writ of federal habeas corpus, alleging denial of his constitutional right to a speedy trial, Smith v. Hooey, 393 U. S. 374 (1969), and praying that an order issue directing respondent to afford him an immediate trial on a then three-year-old Kentucky indictment. We are to consider whether, as petitioner was not physically present within the territorial limits of the District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, the provision of 28 U. S. C. § 2241 (a) that “[w]rits of habeas corpus may be granted by the .. . district courts . . . within their respective jurisdictions” (emphasis supplied), precluded the District Court from [*486] entertaining petitioner's application. The District Court held that the section did not bar its determination of the application. The court held further that petitioner had been denied a speedy trial and ordered respondent either to secure his presence in Kentucky for trial within 60 days or to dismiss the indictment. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed on the ground that “the habeas corpus jurisdiction conferred on the federal courts by 28 U. S. C. § 2241 (a) is ‘limited to petitions filed by persons physically present within the territorial limits of the District Court.’ ” 454 F. 2d 145, 146 (1972). We granted certiorari. 407 U. S. 909 (1972). We reverse.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.