Hoo v. United States, 484 U.S. 1035 (1988). · Go Syfert
Search
Hoo v. United States, 484 U.S. 1035 (1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
149 citation events (59 in the last 25 years) across 21 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Geoffrey King (vt, 2016-12-23)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) State v. Geoffrey King (3×)
Vt. · 2016 · confidence medium
Infra, ¶ 23. 5 require the defendant to demonstrate “improper prosecutorial motive,” while two circuits “hold that the proper inquiry is to balance the prejudice to the defendant against the Government’s justification for delay.” Hoo v. United States, 484 U.S. 1035, 1036 (1988) (White, J., dissenting on denial of certiorari) (surveying circuit split and citing United States v. Valentine, 783 F.2d 1413, 1416 (9th Cir. 1986); Automated Med.
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Boysen
Cal. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
(Hoo v. United States (1988) 484 U.S. 1035, 1035-1036 [ 98 L.Ed.2d 777, 108 S.Ct. 742 ].) That split still exists.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Knickerbocker
N.H. · 2005 · confidence medium
Hoo, 484 U.S. at 1036 (White, J., dissenting).
examined Cited "see" Ventura v. People (3×)
virginislands · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
Rev. 1049 , 1059 (2005); see Hoo v. United States, 484 U.S. 1035, 1036 , 108 S. Ct. 742 , 98 L.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Rivera (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Hoo, 825 F.2d 667, 668, 670 (2d Cir.1987) (applicability of Act measured as of date proceedings instituted), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1085 , 108 S.Ct. 742 , 98 L.Ed.2d 777 (1988); In re Martin, 788 F.2d 696, 697 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1009 , 106 S.Ct. 3306 , 92 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986).
examined Cited "see" United States v. Welch (3×)
1st Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Hoo, 825 F.2d 667, 670 (2d Cir.1987) (accused indicted after twenty-first birthday is criminally liable, as an adult, for illegal conduct committed entirely before age eighteen), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1035 , 108 S.Ct. 742 , 98 L.Ed.2d 777 (1988); In re Martin, 788 F.2d 696 , 697-98 *1207 (11th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1009 , 106 S.Ct. 3306 , 92 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Welch
1st Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. ___ ______________ Hoo, 825 F.2d 667, 670 (2d Cir. 1987) (accused indicted after ___ twenty-first birthday is criminally liable, as an adult, for illegal conduct committed entirely before age eighteen), cert. ________ ______ _____ denied, 484 U.S. 1035 (1988); In re Martin, 788 F.2d 696 , 697-98 ______ ____________ (11th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1009 (1986).
examined Cited "see" Whittlesey v. State (6×)
Md. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hoo v. United States, 484 U.S. 1035 , 108 S.Ct. 742 , 98 L.Ed.2d 777 (1988) (White, J. dissenting from a denial of a writ of certiorari). .
examined Cited "see" McGuire v. State, Department of Revenue & Taxation (6×)
Wyo. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hoo v. United States, 484 U.S. 1035 , 108 S.Ct. 742 , 98 L.Ed.2d 777 (1988), White, J., dissenting, prosecutorial pre-in-dictment delay amounts to a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 , 97 S.Ct. 2044 , 52 L.Ed.2d 752 , reh’g denied 434 U.S. 881 , 98 S.Ct. 242 , 54 L.Ed.2d 164 (1977), due process clause has limited role to play in protecting against oppressive delay; and United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 , 92 S.Ct. 455 , 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971), the due process clause may provide a basis for dismissing an indictment if the …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Davis (2×)
Or. · 2008 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Hoo, 484 U.S. at 1035-36 , 108 S.Ct. 742 (White, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Perry Hoo
v.
United States
87-5620.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 19, 1988.
484 U.S. 1035
White.
Cited by 41 opinions  |  Published
Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Justice WHITE, dissenting.

Lead Opinion

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Dissent

Justice White,

dissenting.

The issue presented by this petition for certiorari is what is the correct test for determining if prosecutorial preindictment delay amounts to a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See United States v. Lovasco, 431 U. S. 783 (1977). In this case, the petitioner argued that he was prejudiced by the prosecutorial delay in filing the indictment against him, for it was filed 13 days after he turned 21 years of age, and consequently he was ineligible for the protections of the Federal Juvenile Delin[*1036] quency Act, 18 U. S. C. §5031 et seq. The Second Circuit held that there was no due process violation because petitioner “made no showing of an improper prosecutorial motive.” 825 F. 2d 667, 671 (1987). Other Circuits have similarly required a showing of prosecutorial misconduct' designed to obtain a tactical advantage over the defendant or to advance some other impermissible purpose in order to establish a due process violation. United States v. Ismaili, 828 F. 2d 153, 166 (CA3 1987); United States v. Lebron-Gonzalez, 816 F. 2d 823, 831 (CA1), cert. denied, ante, pp. 843, 857; United States v. Caporale, 806 F. 2d 1487, 1514 (CA11 1986), cert. denied, 482 U. S. 917, 483 U. S. 1021 (1987); United States v. Jenkins, 701 F. 2d 850, 854-855 (CA10 1983). Two Circuits, however, have concluded that intentional misconduct is not the sine qua non for a due process violation from prosecutorial preindictment delay, and instead they hold that the proper inquiry is to balance the prejudice to the defendant against the Government’s justification for delay. United States v. Valentine, 783 F. 2d 1413, 1416 (CA9 1986); United States v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 770 F. 2d 399, 403-404 (CA4 1985). Exemplifying the significant disagreement in the lower courts over the proper test, panels in the Fifth and Seventh Circuits have acknowledged conflicts between decisions from their own Circuits on this issue. Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F. 2d 220, 229, n. 16 (CA5), cert. denied, ante, p. 956; United States v. Hollins, 811 F. 2d 384, 387-388 (CA7 1987). The continuing conflict among the Circuits on this important question of constitutional law requires resolution by this Court; I would grant certiorari.