Document: 372 U.S. 734 83 S.Ct. 1033 10 L.Ed.2d 100 Raymond DOWNUM, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 489. Argued March 20, 1963. Decided April 22, Richard Tinsman, San Antonio, Texas, for petitioner. William A. Geoghegan, Cincinnati, Ohio, respondent. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case, involving a federal prosecution stealing from mail and forging uttering checks so stolen, presents question under Double Jeopardy Clause Fifth Amendment '* * nor shall any person be subject same offence to twice put in jeopardy life or limb *.' Petitioner three others were charged an indictment containing eight counts. The codefendants pleaded guilty, petitioner being tried alone before jury convicted on all but Counts 2, which did not apply him. claim double arose as follows: 2 On morning 25, 1961, case was called trial both sides announced ready. A selected sworn instructed return at p.m. When it returned, asked that discharged because its key witness 6 7 present—one Rutledge, who payee involved those moved dismissed want continue rest motion denied judge over petitioner's objection. Two days later when again second impaneled, former jeopardy. His plea overruled, had, he found guilty. Court Appeals affirmed, 5 Cir., 300 F.2d 137; we granted petition certiorari seeming conflict between this decision Cornero v. United States, 48 69, 74 A.L.R. 797, Ninth Circuit. 371 811, 54, 9 54. 3 present one dozen set call during previous week, cases approximately witnesses. Subpoenas them, including had been marshal service. day first called, prosecutor's assistant checked with learned Rutledge's wife going let him know where her husband was, if she could find out. No word received no follow-up made. allowed even though witnesses absent found. 4 From States Perez, Wheat. 579, L.Ed. 165, decided 1824, Gori 367 364, 81 1523, 901, has agreed there are occasions may although impaneled without reaching verdict defendant's consent. classic example is mistrial unable agree. supra; Logan 144 263, 298, 12 617, 628, 36 429; Dreyer Illinois, 187 71, 85—86, 23 28, 32—33, 47 79; Keerl Montana, 213 135, 29 469, 53 734. In Wade Hunter, 336 684, 69 834, 93 974, tactical problems army field held justify withdrawal court-martial proceeding commencement another day. Discovery by member members biased pro con side warrant discharge direction new trial. supra, 689, 837, 974; Simmons 142 148, 171, 35 968; Thompson 155 271, 15 73, 39 146. At times valued right defendant have his completed particular tribunal summoned sit judgment subordinated public interest—when imperious necessity do so. 690, 837—838, 974. Differences arisen application ofthe principle. See Brock North Carolina, 344 424, 73 349, 97 456; Green 355 184, 188, 78 221, 223—224, 199. Harassment accused successive prosecutions declaration afford more favorable opportunity convict examples attaches. 369, 1526—1527, 901. But extreme mark limits guarantee. discretion reached exercised 'only very extraordinary striking circumstances,' use words Story Coolidge, 25 Fed.Cas. 622, 623. For prohibition 'not against punished, jeopardy.' Ball, 163 662, 669, 16 1192, 1194, 41 300. try served summons other arrangements made assure presence. That essential only two six counts concerning Yet opposed dismiss proceed four counts—a court denied. Here, 691, 838, refuse say absence 'can never discontinuance trial.' Each must turn facts. record, however, think what said states governing There continued present, they time discharged. sustained selected, saying: 'The fact that, district attorney ascertaining whether took chance. While their might justified continuance view bond appear place, presented here entirely different exercise sound granting furtherance justice. situation simply entered upon sufficient evidence convict. does take out rule reference difference principle discovery immediately after insufficient some witnesses.' 797. view, support authorities,1 our correct one. We resolve doubt 'in favor liberty citizen, rather than would unlimited, uncertain, arbitrary judicial discretion.'2 means below reversed. Reversed. 8 CLARK, whom HARLAN, STEWART WHITE join, dissenting. applying 797 (C.A.9th 1931), says 'the so.' (Emphasis supplied.) urged adopt rule, refused. Applying here, orders conviction reversed free.* 974 (1949), refused follow characterized holding such 'imperious' 'urgent necessity' come within recognized exception provision. Id., said: 11 'We contends can Such rigid formula inconsistent guiding principles Perez (United 165 (1824)) adhere. Those command courts considering should terminated 'all circumstances into account' thereby forbid mechanical abstract formula. value thus lies capacity informed widely circumstances, injury defendants interest.' Ibid. I adhere short holds 'a discontinued manifest doing, failure discontinue defeat ends justice.' 13 order necessary facts recalled. Wednesday Thursday week preceding trial, cases, following Monday. judge, 'very notice.' Transcript Record, p. 18. issued District Attorney's office placed hands marshal. list, prosecutor stated foresee Tuesday, week's hearings. shorthanded, assistants military assigned inform them husband's whereabouts, learn it. Since trying Tuesday contact determine Rutledge ready this. then excused until p.m., proceeded complete hearing noon. Then, checking marshal's noon recess, discovered present. He chambers, opening afternoon session defense counsel advised open Government available go couple days. indictment—those witness—on ground lack remaining court, discharged—all objections defense. interposed Thereafter, guilty 14 begun act case. formally arraigned presence jury, heard time, required addition, having later, prolonged anxiety, caused additional expense embarrassment, deprived prejudiced way. Neither contended less other. conclusions indicate viewed himself resulted excusable oversight. indication explanation mere cover negligent preparation action way deliberate. nothing record suggests used purpose securing advantage harass Indeed, appears just often creep result inadvertence many handled period. course visualize ways handling situation. together, discharging attendance obtained. this, prospectively moment acted, tied up men panel indefinite period disrupted calendar entire longer. It understandable concerned calendar. Moreover, two-day above manner—holding jury—were improper appeal court's judgment, retried suffering full also disclosure Nor indictment, claims require testimony tenable. trials raise legal proposition barred. ordinarily maximum sentence, well good reason, addition obvious preference trials, wanting considered proceeding. passing government conspiring codefendants, commit acts. important, key, conspiracy. fact, expressed safely Rutledge. pp. 19 20. 17 As see problem, issue failing check allowing constituted deprival rights entitled acquittal merits. Obviously suffered deprivation. Ever since 'ends justice' determining question. Wheat., 580, 165. light cannot how finds abused affording bring forward who, surprise, temporarily absent. believe justice,' referred fair people's obtain adjudication merits, criminal turned free harmless oversight prosecutor. Watson, 28 499, 500—501, ruled illness attorney, appearing minutes occurred sworn, impossible conduct off term assistant, regarded creating withdrawing juror. So, too, prosecution, known law officers create plain justifying disclosed which, discretion, can, properly consent defendant, commenced. To admit propriety grounds throw door indulgence caprice partiality possible probable prejudice defendants. commenced swearing charge, part is, him, unless consents giving verdict, would, spread enable error proper.' And Shoemaker, 27 1067. note 1, 501. Both 499 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1868), supports Cornero, distinguishable sought five-day followed years contrasted delay instant begun. therefore realistically retrial harassment. subpoenas neither served, while subpoena but, reasons thought justifiable, served. Watson eight-day Attorney ill Upon resumption Attorney. these observed apparently shown Assistant issued.

Category: 0