Earl Warren

“ The North Carolina Supreme Court's conclusion-that the right to a speedy trial does not afford affirmative protection against an unjustified postponement of trial for an accused discharged from custody-has been explicitly rejected by every other state court which has considered the question. [4] That conclusion has also been implicitly rejected by the numerous courts which have held that a nolle prossed indictment may not be reinstated at a subsequent term. ”

“ Under North Carolina criminal procedure, when the prosecuting attorney of a county, denominated the solicitor, determines that he does not desire to proceed further with a prosecution, he may take a nolle prosequi, thereby declaring 'that he will not, at that time, prosecute the suit further. Its effect is to put the defendant without day, that is, he is discharged and permitted to go whithersoever he will, without entering into a recognizance to appear at any other time.' Wilkinson v. ”

“ By the late thirteenth century, justices, armed with commissions of gaol delivery and/or oyer and terminer [10] were visiting the countryside three times a year. [11] These justices, Sir Edward Coke wrote in Part II of his Institutes, 'have not suffered the prisoner to be long detained, but at their next coming have given the prisoner full and speedy justice, * * * without detaining him long in prison.' [12] To Coke, prolonged detention without trial would have been contrary to the law and custom of England ”

“ And when a robber or murderer or thief or receiver of them has been arrested through the aforesaid oath, if the justices are not about to come speedily enough into the country where they have been taken, let the sheriffs send word to the nearest justice by some well-informed person that they have arrested such men, and the justices shall send back word to the sheriffs informing them where they desire the men to be brought before them ”

“ Smith, 129 N.C. 546, 40 S.E. 1 (1901) ; State v. Thornton, 35 N.C. 256 (1852) . But, in the present case, neither the court below nor the solicitor offers any reason why the case of petitioner should have been nolle prossed except for the suggestion of the Supreme Court that the solicitor, having tried the defendant once and having obtained only a mistrial, 'may have concluded that another go at it would not be worth the time and expense of another effort.' 266 N.C., at 350, 145 S.E.2d, at 910. ”

“ I, § 14 ('Excessive bail should not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted') . See State v. Driver, 78 N.C. 423 (1878) . Decisions of the state courts indicate that imprisonment for up to two years would not be an 'unusual punishment.' See, e.g., State v. ”