October Term 2000 · Docket 00-492
Does a brief confinement break void a state indictment?
Alabama seeks to keep a criminal case alive. The defendant argues a short break in custody forces dismissal.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Stewart argued the case does not involve an unjust conviction or constitutional denial.
Mr. Christensen argued all courts recognize the agreement's mandatory language.
Mr. Lamken argued a brief confinement break does not force dismissal.
Chief Justice Rehnquist noted the case was submitted after the argument.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 21-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 7-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 35-39
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The Interstate Agreement on Detainers governs prisoner transfers. The parties dispute whether a brief break in custody triggers mandatory dismissal.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 21-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 7-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-7
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 17, 2001.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
What each side wants
Alabama wants the Court to uphold the state indictment despite a brief break in custody.
The defendant wants the Court to dismiss the state indictment due to the break in custody.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 21-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 7-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-7
What each side says
Alabama argues a brief interruption in confinement does not require dismissal under the agreement.
The defendant argues the agreement's mandatory language requires dismissal after a break in custody.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 21-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 7-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-7
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted after the argument concluded.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 35-39
Why it matters
This case defines when a state must drop charges after a prisoner transfer delay. It sets the rule for all future prisoner transfer disputes. It balances state prosecution power against prisoner rights. It clarifies the mandatory nature of the interstate agreement.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 21-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 7-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-7
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 35-39
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 21-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 7-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 21-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 7-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-7
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.