US Supreme Court dismisses ineffective counsel case

Listen to this article

After taking up and hearing arguments in a case considering whether a delay caused by a state’s failure to fund counsel for an indigent’s defense should be a factor in determining whether the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case as improvidently granted.

Although the case, Boyer v. Louisiana, was dismissed in a one-sentence order, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote a concurrence explaining that the factual record in the case did not support the premise of the question presented.

“We have before us the same record that was before the Court of Appeals, and the record simply does not support the proposition that much — let alone ‘most’ — of the delay was caused by the State’s failure to fund the defense,” Alito wrote in his concurrence, which was joined by Justices Antonin G. Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

But in a dissent joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan, Justice Sonia M. Sotomayor disagreed.

“Rather than dismiss the writ as improvidently granted, I would simply address this question,” Sotomayor wrote. “Our precedents provide a clear answer: Such a delay should weigh against the State.”

The case drew national attention in January when the usually silent Thomas made his first comment during oral arguments in nearly seven years.