New York v. Michael Hill (528 U.S. 110)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 11, 2000 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 528 U.S. 110 · 120 S. Ct. 659
- Decided
- January 11, 2000
- Term
- October Term 1999
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Scalia
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the question whether defense counsel’s agreement to a trial date outside the time period required by Article III of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers bars the defendant from seeking dismissal because trial did not occur within that period. I The Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) is a compact entered into by 48 States, the United States, and the District of Columbia to establish procedures for resolution of one State’s outstanding charges against a prisoner of another State. See N. Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 580.20 (McKinney 1995); 18 U. S. C. App. § 2; 11A U. L. A. 48 (1995) (listing jurisdictions). As “a eongressionally sanctioned interstate compact” within the Compact Clause of the United States Constitution, Art. I, § 10, cl. 8, the IAD is a federal law subject to federal construction. Carchman v. Nash, 473 U. S. 716, 719 (1985); Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U. S. 433, 442 (1981). A State seeking to bring charges against a prisoner in another State’s custody begins the process by filing a detainer, which is a request by the State’s criminal justice agency that the institution in which the prisoner is housed hold the prisoner for the agency or notify the agency when release is imminent. Fex v. Michigan, 507 U. S. 43, 44 (1993). After a detainer has been lodged against him, a prisoner may file a “request for a…
Excerpt of a 15,239-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.