Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 263 247 196 863 Warner Bros., Inc. v. Gay Toys, Inc., 658 F. 2d 76 Warner & Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 265 U.S. 526 852, 854, 860, 861 Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 239, 270 Washington v. Norton Manufacturing, Inc., 588 F. 2d 441 715 Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Assn., 443 U.S. 658 762, 763, 774, 784 Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D. C. 371 Watt v. Energy Action Educational Foundation, 454 U.S. 151 256 Wilkins v. University of Hous- U.S. 646 286 131 Willis v. Balkcom, 451 U.S. 926 428 Windward Shipping, Ltd. v. American Radio Assn., 415 U.S. 104 220, 221 Winship, In re, 397 U.S. 270 358 101 Waugh v. Gray, 422 U.S. 1027 1000 Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164 Weber v. Grand Lodge of Kentucky, F. & A. M., 169 F. 447, 448 522 Weeks v. United States, 232 809 tice, 160 U.S. App. D. C. 71 627 119, 122, 131, 133, 134, 149, 150 Wirtz v. Hotel Employees, 391 U.S. 492 Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535 441 40, 42 Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 195 Wolak v. United States, 366 F. 739 Supp. 1106 Wood v. Dennis, 489 F. 2d 849 433, 439, 441 CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AT OCTOBER TERM, 1981 UNITED STATES v. MACDONALD CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 80-1582. Argued December 7, 1981-Decided March 31, 1982 In May 1970, the Army formally charged respondent, a captain in the Army Medical Corps, with the murders earlier that year of his pregnant wife and two children on a military reservation. Later that year, the military charges were dismissed and the respondent was honorably discharged on the basis of hardship, but at the Justice Department's request the Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) continued its investigation of the homicides. In June 1972, the CID forwarded a report recommending further investigation, and the Justice Department, in 1974, ultimately presented the matter to a grand jury, which returned an indictment in January 1975, charging respondent with the three murders. On an interlocutory appeal from the District Court's denial of respondent's motion to dismiss the indictment, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the delay between the June 1972 submission of the CID report to the Justice Department and the 1974 convening of the grand jury violated respondent's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. After this Court's decision that respondent could not appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds until after completion of the trial, 435 U. S. 850, respondent was tried and convicted. The Court of Appeals again held that the indictment violated respondent's right to a speedy trial and dismissed the indictment. Held: The time between dismissal of the military charges and the subsequent indictment on civilian charges may not be considered in determining whether the delay in bringing respondent to trial violated his right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment. Pp. 6-10. |