Document: 399 U.S. 267 90 S.Ct. 2117 26 L.Ed.2d 608 UNITED STATES, Appellant,v.John Heffron SISSON, Jr. No. 305. Argued Jan. 20 and 21, 1970. Decided June 29, [Syllabus from pages 267-269 intentionally omitted] Sol. Gen. Erwin N. Griswold, for appellant. John G. S. Flym, Boston, Mass., appellee. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of Court.* 1 The Government seeks to appeal this Court a decision by District in Massachusetts holding that appellee Sisson could not be criminally convicted refusing induction into Armed Forces. Court's was bottomed on what court understood Sisson's rights conscience as nonreligious objector Vietnam war, but wars general, under Free Exercise Establishment Clauses First Amendment Due Process Clause Fifth Constitution United States. primary conclusion, reached after full trial, prohibited 'the application 1967 draft act require him render combat service Vietnam' because 'sincerely conscientious man,' interest killing conflict outweighed country's present need so employed,' 297 F.Supp. 902, 910 (1969). 2 characterized its own an arrest judgment, review here pursuant 'arresting judgment' provision Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3731, Act narrowly limits Government's right criminal cases certain types decisions. On October 13, 1969, entered order postponing further consideration question jurisdiction hearing case merits, 396 812, 92, 24 65 For reasons we elaborate follows, conclude below, depending it does facts developed at is judgment instead directed acquittal. As such, can appeal. Consequently, must dismissed lack without our considering merits case. We, course, intimate no view concerning correctness legal theory which evaluated trial.1 3 predicate conclusion have entertain appeal, statement proceedings below desirable. 4 * A single-count indictment charged 'did unlawfully, knowingly wilfully fail neglect refuse perform duty' imposed Military Selective Service regulations, violation 12 81 Stat. 105, 50 App. 462(a) (1964 ed., Supp. IV), he failed obey his local board submit induction. 5 Prior attorney moved dismiss three grounds. It claimed refusal justified first, government's military involvement violates international law'; and, second, 'reasonably believed illegal.' third ground, regulations were unconstitutional (a) procedures followed boards lacked due process; (b) compulsory conscription during peacetime unnecessary stifled fundamental personal liberties. In support motion dismiss, stated: 6 'At time I refused armed forces believed, believe today, States illegal law well treaties then, still believe, my participation war would violate spirit letter Nuremberg Charter. basis knowledge participate doing violence dictates conscience.' At appellee's Judge said had 'an open mind' first However, there 'nothing to' second noting defendant reasonably believes cannot raised way you propose appear face indictment.' (App. 49.) later amplified saying: 7 'Point plainly premature nobody test issue whether knowing evidence appears 52.) (Emphasis supplied.) 8 Defense counsel did dispute analysis, noted only 'in economy,' '(i)t clear filed government challenge fact.' expressed doubts willingness concede fact, when asked court, specifically stated opposition dismiss. thereupon found 'second ground' merit. 9 short hearing, issued two written opinions, 294 511 515 (1968), denied other grounds After determining requisite standing raise issues involved, held political doctrine foreclosed Congress constitutionally undeclared was, or fight allegedly 'genocidal war.' 10 An accompanying pretrial also dealt with various offers proof defense made informal part record. From 'offer show (Sisson) properly inducted conscience, both statutory constitutional.' Not understanding scope rather ambiguous offer proof, ruled if wished make claim based religious objections general particular, should initially judge 11 'to elicit ruling precludes requiring one who has respond received. If rules favorably Constitutional law, then prosecution are entitled trier fact relevant indeed F.Supp., 519. however, try prove received exemption, nor request referred trial court. Instead seems strategy War domestic belief reasonable. unable get direct adjudication legality least hoped convince jury intent 'wilfully' induction.2 13 There submitted bear issue, however. When why induction, emphasized thought illegal. He felt 'immoral,' 'illegal,' 'unjust,' went against 'my principles best sense right.' conclusions particularly meant immoral. violated feelings about (1) respect human life, (2) value man's freedom, (3) scale destruction consonant purposes American intervention. stated, response judge's question, 'moral values come same sources (the had) mentioned, writings, philosophical beliefs.' 14 allow testimony stand cross-examination. apparent reliance court's beliefs irrelevant wilful,3 concentrated showing deliberately, free will, consequences. brought out I—A classification been issued, accepted, undergraduate, II—S student classification. 15 final arguments jury, just opening statements, neither mentioned non-religious issue. argued key tried suggest this. lawyer simply pointed operative refusal. attacked sincerity pointing inconsistency between broad statements opposed deferments they discriminated poor, see n. 2, supra, accept deferment while Harvard College. (See 187—188.) 16 instructions reference claim, find 'sincere' moral war. told crux 'unlawfully, wilfully' done.4 deliberating minutes, verdict guilty. 17 timely Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 34 ground jurisdiction.5 Pointing before prevented defenses therefore Article III offense illegality might provide defense. Court, granting termed rule jurisdictional argument motion. Instead, defendant's 'older contention'6 charge 'never-abandoned' Establishment, Exercise, relating 19 case, effect making findings essential decision. describes how demeanor convinced sincerity. 'Sisson's table ultimate ethical (and) reflects quite real, pervasive, durable, commendable marshalling priorities formal religion.' critical finding that: 'What another derives discipline church, conscience. 21 '* bore burden proving objective sincere. genuinely profoundly governed martyr obedient orthodox 905. 22 Building these findings, 'prohibit employed.' 6(j) 456(j) offends 'unconstitutionally atheists, agnostics, men, like Sisson, who, not, motivated their objection profound constitute central convictions beings.' 911. II 23 bases exclusively 3731.7 language provides: 'An may taken behalf district courts Supreme all following instances: 25 'From arresting conviction insufficiency information, where such upon invalidity construction statute information founded.' Thus, requirements met provision. First, conviction.' Second, 'insufficiency information.' And third, 'based founded.'8 27 Because rests alleged inferred adduced requirement met.9 28 We begin requirement: conviction'? using phrase invent new procedural acted common-law background gave well-defined limited meaning. technical term describing enter error appearing record rendered invalid. W. Blackstone, Commentaries *393; H. Stephen, New Laws England 628 (1st Am. ed. 1845); J. Bishop, Procedure 1285 (2d 1913). 29 purpose arrested 'face record,' offered trial.10 This early English cases. Sutton v. Burr. 2283, 2287, 98 Eng.Rep. 191, 193 (K.B. 1769), '(T)he ought judgments matters record; itself.' Once transported States,11 limitation arrests explicitly acknowledged Court. Klintock, Wheat. 144, 149, L.Ed. 55 (1820), 'judgment errors record.' Bond Dustin, 112 604, 296, 835 (1884), said, '(A) maintained defect record, purpose,' id., 608, S.Ct., 298. See Carter Bennett, How. 354, 356—357, 727 (1854); Norris, 281 619, 424, 74 1076 (1930). 30 venerable common preserved Federal Rules Procedure, uniformly Rule 34,12 look beyond E.g., Zisblatt, 172 F.2d 740 (C.A.2d Cir.), motion, 336 934, 69 750, 93 1093 (1949); Lias, 173 685 (C.A.4th Cir. 1949); Bradford, 194 197 1952). C. Wright, Practice 571 (1969); L. Orfield, Under 34:7 (1967). Therefore, interpret 'decision speaking (in 1907) down past,'13 do more than imposing standards 34,14 judgment.15 31 clearly record' reaching earlier, relies including evidence, 'as conscience' objector. 32 To avoid inescapable makes arguments. suggests factual presented constitutional rulings, circumstantial framework' below. (Jurisdictional Statement 9; Brief 8.) withstand absolutely essential, theory, disposition Without sincerely fundamentally conflict, serving service.16 33 argues even though relied 'undisputed.' Adopting used claims substance arises agreed facts.' 904. goes argue decisions 'recognized stipulation parties case' affecting citing Halseth, 342 277, 72 275, 96 308 (1952), Fruehauf, 365 146, 547, 476 (1961). concludes exalting form over hold contested facts, yet lie resting parties. Preliminarily, never lies depends, sufficiency alone, Halseth But federal anti-lottery game existence. dismissing indictment, affirming decision, rely stipulation. And, deciding 3731 existed, obviously decide—and discuss—whether any difference. Insofar cited Government, point away contention. Fruehauf consider "judicial admission' culled memorandum' Judge. Rather penalizing exercised discretion 2106 setting aside remanding existing indictment. 35 establish contention, authority points strongly opposite direction. (1930), 'stipulation ineffective import guilt innocence,' nothing added concurrence grand jury,' 622, 425. While true Norris complicated guilty plea, '(i)f been) plea (had given effect, oust court.' 622—623, together policy, often strictly construed see, e.g., Borden Co., 188, 192, 60 182, 185, 84 181 (1939), very doubtful should, stipulation, able secure motion-in-arrest provisions 3731. 36 decide approaching here. Before way, formally informally, agree opinion. recall stipulate illegal, so, Moreover, cross-examined acceptance disapproved unfair, hardly accepted insofar far being parties, most chose opinion's fact. Even assuming permissible, intolerable whenever labels arrest, merely accepts lower trial—for mean foist B 37 requirement, 'for indictment,' Senator Nelson, sponsors plain debates element important limitation. said: 38 'The lies, covering arrested. indictment—that is, failure offense.' 41 Cong.Rec. 2756. 39 40 9033. Although recites 'not offense' 34, surely necessary elements offense.17 affirmative beliefs. sufficient, anticipate defenses, Fargas, 452, 455 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1967) 'Any questions validity board's grant exemption (that) (t)here necessity negate *'. assuming, arguendo, sincere objectors particular privilege bars conviction, recitals itself '(W)hat short, insufficient for, hand, offense, allege themselves demonstrate availability privilege. C reason underlying judgment—i.e., trial—convinces us acquittal jury's analysis helpful compare instructed follows: 42 'If sincere, religion, acquit having serve obeying find, convict petitioner induction.' 43 instructed, doubt appealed matter erroneous instructions. Knox bill become Act: 44 'Mark this: proposed give circumstances acquitted whatever committed 45 takes risks mistakes prosecuting officers defeat defeats trial. 46 gets benefit favor, him.' 2752. 47 Quite apart statute, settled reviewed, otherwise, putting defendant) twice jeopardy, thereby violating constitution. (I)n country acquittal, although bar subsequent offence,' Ball, 163 662, 671, 1192, 1195, 300 (1896).18 48 differences hypothetical suggested hand. judge—not jury—who determinations. difference alone distinction, judges, juries, defendants, 29. 29(b) (c) expressly allow, 'returns guilty.' labeled post-verdict characterization confers 7, less dependent distinction did, acquittal.19 49 dissenting opinions THE CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE too niggardly interpretation each contends broadly policy favor review. frequently 'exceptional instances specified,' appeals 'are something unusual, exceptional, favored,' Carroll States, 354 394, 400, 1332, 1335—1336, 1442 (1957); Keitel, 211 370, 399, 123, 132, 53 230 (1908); Dickinson, 213 103, 485 488, 711 (1909); cf. Will 389 90, 96, 88 269, 274, 305 approach Brothers inconsistent notions. legislative history compromise origins justify principle strict always placed provisions. now IV),20 descended unchanged original enacted March 1907, 1246,21 crucial focus inquiry 1907 Act.22 51 Beginning 1892—15 years enactment Act—the Attorneys General regularly recommended passage legislation allowing cases.23 Their perhaps Attorney Miller 1892 report: 'As stands power single judge, quashing instituted Government.'24 progress, until President Theodore Roosevelt, outraged Humphrey preventing Beef Trust,25 reform 'major issue,'26 demanded 1906 annual message Congress.27 52 House, commentator written, 'was presidential command.'28 passed, debate,29 giving decided adversely earlier accorded defendant.30 Senate sweeping change traditional all. substitute Judiciary Committee reported out31 narrowed House substantially, writs sustaining demurrer indictment; special pleas put jeopardy. narrowed, floor,32 session closed action.33 next session, again Committee,34 debated days floor strong opposition.35 Reflecting deep concern jeopardize interests defendants whose amendments adopted within prosecute diligence;36 released recognizance presiding judge.37 Various Senators concerned lest possibility already through subjected successful Government.38 concern, amendment set appeal39 based.40 purposes, result judge.41 explore detail later, jeopardy attached impaneling jury.42 Finally, limit public importance, (under provision) confined 'invalidity founded.'43 54 With passed division February 1907,44 referring Senate's version Committee,45 disagreed conference.46 conference committee, divesting hear appeals, changes.47 Both approved committee,48 President's signature became law. perspective, examine conclusion. dissent 'contemplates appropriate category defined history,' 'evidence considered solely testing constitutionality charging applied,' post, 314 (dissenting JUSTICE). 56 dissenters create procedure label judgment—in Government. empty vessel pour vintage think better suits present-day tastes. shown, terms 1907. interpretation, meaning antecedents, alien limitations today govern motions 34.49 57 Radical reinterpretations effectuate issues. axiom endeavor nurtures policies guides covered subsumed committed. Care taken, up prepared enact especially boundaries drawn resulting countervailing pressures policies. Our disagreeing Brothers, seeking energize congressional commitment review, ignore subtlety jurisdiction, garnering votes Act.50 58 regard, reveals current solicitude plight exposed additional expense anxiety incumbent multiple trials. 'always threaten offend behind double-jeopardy prohibition,' retrial. Out collision competing favoring fully satisfied bill's opponents.51 thus born compromise, manifested restrict enumerated circumstances. 59 Were throw overboard ballast provided statute's history, cast ourselves adrift, blind buoys marking safely navigable zone jurisdiction. distinguished sufficient insincere. emerged going those disagreement reserve himself resolution disputes speech protest march privileged Amendment, practice rights. provision, 'motion bar' Act. address light brief issue,52 dispose 61 motion-in-bar confused,53 interpreting provision.54 expansive view, granted necessarily case.55 shown itself. asserted required would, think, 'general issue' suit registrant's says opinion, 'establishing actually case,' 324, once raises challenging it. pre-induction determinations intertwined D.C., (1967) (pretrial 12(b)(1) affidavit, (conscientious objector) Fargas will embraced issue'); Ramos, 413 743, 744 (C.A.1st 1969) (evidentiary means '(q)uestions regarding appellant's trial,' approval).56 62 construe confining appeal—except judgment—to situations impaneled, retried allowed attached. began, 63 reach several reasons. clear, expectation except arrest—which rulings related occur began.57 'when jeopardy.' read exactly says—i.e., attaches. shows much confusion prohibition subjecting double jeopardy58 little then-settled notion sworn.59 restatement prohibition, WHITE, renders completely superfluous. No Constitution.60 64 draws strength Department Justice, agency enacted, shortly consistently abided since passed. Solicitor brief: section sworn. Soon Report urged omission governmental post-jeopardy remedied revising prior attached,' 17. 66 Later, Second Circuit certified determine jeopardy' incorporated limitation, literally, states: 67 General, barred attached, (336 934 (69 1093)). thereafter adhered position, sought circumstances.'61 68 deserves great weight. some viewed retrial terminated passage62 correct course easily administered test: begins. IV 70 Clarity desired important. Otherwise expend energy, settlement, judged terms, failure. Born reflecting coherent allocation appellate responsibility,63 proved unruly child improved age. roots grounded pleading distinctions existed which, instances, coincide categories Procedure. uncertainty analyze nature falls class authorized,64 engendered appealable brought.65 71 oral forthrightly 'there few problems extreme difficulty General's office (as) proper Act.'66 share dissatisfaction statute. Nevertheless, decides amend abide awkward ancient 73 ordered. Appeal 75 BLACK concurs Part IIC 76 BLACKMUN took 77 Chief BURGER, whom DOUGLAS join, dissenting. 78 action virtue 'arrest clause provides 79 '(f)rom 80 rejecting holds opting carries antecedents meet criteria My rationale prompted mode excessive practices long superseded Acts Congress. Section Court: conviction'; information'; 82 conviction,' undue encrusted lore centuries jurisprudence, established date law's development; Blackstone describe device procedurally sentence. permitting allocution, traditionally prisoner 'anything awarded *375. offering exceptions want certainty forth either person, time, place, offence.' Ibid. successful, stay judgment. Also, itself, successors know judgment.' 1769) (emphasis added). included roll; indeed, knew Statute West-minster sealed roll writ error.' 740, 741—742 Cir.) (L. Hand, C.J.), (1949). 83 Much, all, learning transplanted 1807, recognized existence Cantril, Cranch 167, 584 (1807). 1820, Marshall *.' (1820). (1884). Whether 3731's incorporates looking Fed.Rules Crim.Proc.,1 indicated notwithstanding precise—and suggest, purposeful, delineations astute familiar we. 85 conceded uses sense. implications concession arguing base wholly allegations partial undisputed appeared conflict.'2 purport i.e., charged, submits infirm applied Sisson. Since trial3 now, use akin treated supplementing (like particulars). (1961).4 86 strictures concept theCriminal contemplates history. Specifically, niceties roll' outgrown formalisms. 87 applied. surrounding abundantly contemplated face-of-the-record disappeared, disfavoring misplaced. reasoning pays scant attention problem attempting solve desire number remedy selected cases.5 Such 'left mercy judges circuit courts. serious beginning movement increasing social control machinery.'6 Congress, stirred complete proposals Armour & 142 F. 808 (D.C.N.D.Ill.1906), ending Sherman Roosevelt interest. 89 debate, prosecutions defendant,' offense. 5408 (1906). Senate, bill. Rather, ultimately refined part, S.Rep. 3922, 59th Cong., 1st Sess. came leader bill, Knute Nelson Minnesota, explained terms: '(S)ometimes unconstitutional. object (of bill) take Court.' 8695 (1906) absence unanimous consent consideration. returned floor, Unanimous proceed withdrawn over. 9033 amended committee January spirited three-day debate place respecting impact accused. Indeed, among discussed suvcceeded prosecuted. 2192—2193 (1907). almost none Knox, say 'this along line law.' 2751 apparently immediately observation: 'In Crown State foundation conceded.' manifest, overriding enacting permit subject jeopardy,7 carried provision.8 major limiting restricted brought. 2819—2820 91 Another illustration comes emphasis distinguishing arrest' 'acquittal.' 2748 latter, sure, appeal—no many errors. majority noted, verdicts 2819 text read: 'Provided, That shall aside.' proponent amendment, Rayner, toward 'verdict guilty, 2747 (1907) Here, jury. Further, Rayner narrow reading incongruous substantive deleted WHITE'S 344 11. 92 'Trial errors' factfinding function—which affect trial—were separated involved future attempts statute: him. certainly attacks conducted people highest statutes protection crime.' 2752 (remarks Knox). 94 made—it inapplicable condition conviction—to interposed pronouncing verdict.' 2753 Patterson). 95 acquired 2825 insisted conference, version. adopted. 3994, 4128 Notably, formed total forms pleading. invalidated situation intended reach, contemplate Court—certainly evil aimed at—and enough encompass situations. 'constitutional questions,' 'questions law' permitted stand, lead different treatment parts country, opportunity chance 'settle character.' 2194 97 difficult imagine closely fitting us. likely small one. Indeed impetus grow. Yet member punished depends person whom. extraordinary differing results rationally way—and available insure end. arrest,' insulates anywhere—here Appeals. That, submit, precisely correcting remarkable finds easy explicit meaningful refutes strained day include Evidentiary courts, impossible 'successors (to) judgment,' providing records contain transcripts course. 99 Accordingly, admittedly looked 'genuinely conscience,' defendant, consistent 100 commit acts charged; protected—a sole impediment guilty; ever returned. similar 'Motion Judgment Acquittal,' 'Arrest Judgment,' 34. former 'if sustain conviction' latter 'does allows verdict. grants acquitted, charge. Where 'acquittal' independent Waters, U.S.App.D.C. 127, 175 340 (1948). 101 aware n.o.v., judicial nonappealable status. sophisticated n.o.v. wanted passing Of views controlling, am comforted appraisal doing—or assumption reviewable well-established ignores. 102 inveighs 'broad' denominated right,' 'something favored.' Ante, 291. odd characterization; 'exceptional' 'unusual' define context subjective distaste instance adjudication. tendency miserly prevent construing three-judge applied, Query 316 486, 1122, 1616 (1942); Courts 190 1970), carry weight assessing responsibility case,9 moment. 103 rest presents emphasizes, wrongly, successfully asserted. ordinary defenses. This, indictments typically registrant 104 duty execution rules, directions duly thereto, Code Regulations 1632.14, comply States; Title 50, Appendix, Code, 462.'10 105 subsumes terse myriad called challenge. Prosecutions unusual incorporate proceeding occurred administrative processes System. All compensated plead normally case-in-chief. devised presumption regularity attaches official that, preclude reversal Yates 404 462 1968) (presumption order-of-call requirement). succeeds prima facie presumption, Baker, 416 202 (C.A.9th 1969). 106 By analogy, classified force 'basis fact' establishing deference process preceded proceedings, excused subsume invalid indictment' 107 assume 'insufficient' conviction. But, privilege.' 288. 108 suggestion argument, differently approached, cases, it, drew entire unconstitutional, 109 badly gives rise multitude problems. infirmities excuse liberties articulated terms. urgings addressed gone unheeded. powerful spur corrective 110 111 contrast remedial indicates awareness words sub-class Act's reach. state valid offense.1 'factual findings' issue—they indictment.2 Wyzanski, sincerity, unconstitutionally overbroad purported objectors, protected class. Cf. Thornhill Alabama, 310 88, 736, (1940). made, distinct vel non statute.3 Association Data Processing Organizations Camps, 397 150, 827, 184 (1970); Barlow Collins, 159, 832, 192 (1970). sustained 'a bar, majority, lengthy discussion condescends remarks really discuss concluded Wyzanski's amounted acquittal.' BLACK's indicates, equally superfluous 'acquitted.' reality, bald assertion 'acquitted' begs issue: knows differs confidently attach action. 113 concluding based, happened, happened. Wyzanski guilty,' pretend nonsense. One 'what (Judge decision) was,' ante, 279 asking been.' Covington, 395 57, 1559, (1969) (Harlan, J.). Marihuana Tax majority's amount privilege—e.g., registered marihuana dealers conduct sent good, acquit.4 114 been' happened large critical. 'acquits' instruction, leading placing hazards overturning factfinder's go free. incorrect, guilty—with longer 'arrested'—simply remains effect. 115 quoted 289: retains trial'; 'upon trial.' reflected quotation 2129, constitutes tied 'twice 116 suspect reluctance distinguish stems unlike sets defense, requires resort 'record.' Thus '(t)he defenses,' 287-288, concerned. 117 reject square precedent 53, selective laws encompasses autrefois acquit, convict, pardon.5 Neither embrace variety limitations, 2749, immunity, 2753. thorough occurs concurring Mersky, 361 431, 459, 423 (1960). BRENNAN every possible STEWART narrower confession avoidance, contest declaration, deprive effect.' Id., 457, 473. 118 STEWART, qualifies bar.' induction; 'new matter' wilful 276; Blue, 384 251, 254, 1416, 1418, 510 (1966) Just pleas, Goldman, 277 229, 862 (1928), privilege, Murdock, 284 141, 63, 210 (1931), sort, attacking defendant. J.); 1418 119 Procedurally, conviction—and bar'—does 742 dismissed, recognizes begun. 2749 Rayner). Nor doubt—unlike arrest—that tried. Whyte); Patterson); supra. Harlan recently trying separate 60, 1561. words, '(a) 'capable determination' (without issue) commission assistance defense.' description fits since, careful pains issue'—whether induction—was times Sission's claim.6 120 indistinguishable cites approval throughout There, here, dismissal defense—in limitations. reserved relying 'outside Appeals, directly Learned shrift indictinguishable 121 'Had verdict, 'double jeopardy,' but, accused encounters, extend judges. true, futile reversed.' F.2d, 743. 122 'put turn centers soon 'constitutional' 'legal' succeed advantage success chosen former, literal sense, resolved Hand 'more plausible argument' 'legal decided. 742. 123 unmistakably guarantee convincing loss understand readily unless maintain appearance consistency, protect securing Congress.7 Certainly bind Court;8 examination debates. 124 Congressional Record, 2190 2197, 2744—2763, 2818—2825, passages cite footnote 304-305 57. reference, 9033, Spooner's arising acknowledges, corrected Spooner, 'jeopardy,' exchange debated, postponed pursuing time. Frankfurter Landis, Business (1928). resumed Spooner constitutional, tries ascribe him: 125 subjects man aspect danger 126 content leave function citizens invasion guaranty 2762—2763 Sen. Spooner). 127 passage, 2191, quotes Sentator proposition impaneled. actual 'where impaneled 2191 context, venturing 'jeopardy' whole primarily Bacon supported proponents 2193 McCumber; Bacon). anyone adequate definition is—he return suggestion, favorable side slightest inkling technical, interpreted Rayner's objection: vague term, How 'literal' understand, Senator's unambiguous explanation author jeopardy: 128 cover matter.' 2757 129 'out abundance caution.' 2191. proceeded explain declares meant—namely, emphasizing possibly hastened reply: 130 'That 'being entirely phrase, relate preferred 131 'superfluous' guard calls reading, ignoring indication bear.9 132 refers remark Patterson suggesting concedes, bit discover retracted challenged, insisting begun presented. vigorously Trust Case—a begun, Patterson's interesting because, blithely ignores: 133 'A innocence indicted. offenses outside matter; connected indicted Chicago packers good that. induced led, been, communications business enabled bring help prosecution. crime 134 'Therefore, President, kind determined; obstante 135 obvious impaneled.10 136 doubly Case Patterson, instructions, jeopardy': 137 immunity furnished Garfield officials Bureau defendants. beef-trust lie.' 138 2750 Nelson). 139 talking 'might case'—the novel retrying pleaded taking means. 140 replete indications Congress' 'literal clearest announced form, 2745 Nelson—proponents occupied centered amendment. example Raynor illustrate difficulties saw bar—a plea—was halfway 2749. argued, hence successful. fate depend howling wilderness His guaranteed retried—whatever question. Those 'moot'; sure jeopardy'; 'against 2761—2763; Cong.Rev. 2193. clear—indeed argument—that assumed sense: 141 (Rayner) care not. lawfully again, once, mistrial, moment insists be, again; acquit. 143 thoroughly argued. bill.' Spooner).11 144 begun—an participating undercuts vigorous attack vagueness incredible left intending test,' 307. simple logical impaneled,' avoiding topic debate. 145 post hoc rationalization considerable anywhere references attaches, sense—after notes, 305, reprosecution. agreement—even (1907)—about secured 'jeopardy.' complain, ordered, when, had, convicted.' 146 provisions, defeating protection. Zisblatt: 'So datum, correction attaching consequences (does) trench prohibition.' 147 extremely peculiar path follows similarly scope. trouble Conversely, fear problem; pose problem. dogged determination fit 'common-law pigeonhole,' 442, 465, (Brennan, J., concurring), paying distorting 148 upholds declaring Surely unclear unhappy 'words' start task interpretation. guide purpose, 149 annul specified machinery. Over over, theme repeated dominating safeguarding JUSTICE'S details, type instant 150 remember compromise,' unduly encroaching 'compromise' areas appeal—there accord sort constituted areas; raison d'e tre. Similarly rights, invaded stand. lip applying anxious belongs rights: 1561, 94; 12(b)(1), 12(b)(4), could, forced Constitution—protecting harassing trials offense—is endangered. anything delay 151 reviewed me amounts tacit admission overwhelmingly hang obscure inappropriate, strangely leap contexts broader purposes. Welsh 398 333, 1792, Boys Markets, Inc. Retail Clerks Union, 235, 1583, 199 Toussie 112, 858, 156 Seeger, 380 163, 850, 733 (1965). Compared examples 'statutory construction,' child's play old meaning, interests. 152 Admittedly, far-reaching ones, faced comfortable certiorari. choice prevailing 'cast adrift' flounder helplessly, 299, flavor long-discarded philosophy inspired led solemn admonition 1725 '(w)e keep actions, otherwise introduce utmost confusion.' Reynolds Clarke, 747, 748 (K.B.1725). agree. joins BRENNAN, MARSHALL join certiorari Gillette 925, 2236, 791, Negre Larsen, 2256, 792, 'selective' underlies advancing deserved status, purposely attempted example, Marine officer belief, 'conscientious status.' 143.) questioned counsel, conversation C.O. status honestly Form 150'; system exemptions (to be) unequal discriminate) education money.' flatly 'could deferment.' 147—150.) Among illegal,' order, "Wilfully' intentionally, voluntarily. proves board, accordance regarded contrary *. admissible extent bears intent, motive faith.' instruction Jury acting mental awareness, choice. 'He likes political, ethical, nature. They reasonable sometimes dissents Opinions reasonable, motivation, faith not.' 193.) Defendant 26—five Two substituted lieu of' differed original. described Clause. (of) evidence' 'right 273; contention 5. Possibly recognition this, practice' detailed reference' 'earlier' '(n)o doubt, seasonably clearer.' April 3—two decision—Sisson's requested conform nunc pro tunc 1—the infra, occasion incorrectly 1966 'on text, 20, infra. '(i)n offense." conclusory "arresting (which) founded" 'We guided appealability name (its 128, 340, 341, 335 869, 168, (1948); Hark, 320 531, 536, 359, 361, 290 (1944); (1966). conditions provided. *' arguable construction' U.S.App. IV)—the sound construction, 'statute founded' penalty Socony Mobil Oil 252 420 per 356 712, 757 (1958); (1960); Friedenthal, Cases, Stan.L.Rev. 71, (1959). material roll.' 'no sentence.' 197, 201 cert. denied, 343 979, 1079, 1371 (1952). charged. nolo contendere, fix 7-day period.' 687. None hints Green, 350 415, 522, 494 (1956), disagreement' Compare U.S., 418 421, 524 526, dissent, 526. Bramblett, 348 503, 504, 594 (1955), fraudulent Disbursing Office Representatives 1001 forbids willful falsification department States.' 'department agency' reversed. 1001. carrying gun, gun license. stating th 'question appealability' turned (district) was.' 'interpretation' alternative nonreligious, finding, assert underinclusiveness standing, inappropriate exercise stood alone. U.S.C.App. IV) indictment: 17, 1968, Massachusetts, JOHN HEFFRON JR., Lincoln, 462.' dictate dismissal, retried. 327 WHITE), have' 301. explains 'large critical' difference, 329, exists untenable 'Court Covington,' (1969), 'would law,' original). note, 56, Covington evidentiary hearing. disposing contentions (much jury) regard hazard incrimination'; (had) controversy' nonwaiver self-incrimination, 61, provides, pertinent part: aside, count thereof, founded. indictments, judgments; suppression motion; release bail; transfer vice versa erroneously wrong 1246 wit: quashing, to, invalidity, Between day, times. These 1948 vocabulary conformity 844. 'special bar,' Reviser's Notes coverage, H.R.Rep. 304, 80th Sess., A177; Apex Distributing 270 755 1959). 1942 increase involving informations 271. Other abolished (1928); originally provided, involve Annual Reports 1892, pp. xxiv—xxv; 1893, p. xxvi; 1894, xxix; 1899, 33; 1900, 40; 1903, vi; 1905, 10; 1906, 4. generally Kurland, Mersky Suggestion Statute, U.Chi.L.Rev. 419, 446—449 (1961); 114—117 Rep.Atty.Gen. xxiv. (D.C.N.D.Ill.1906). 23, 117; 449. 22. 450. 5408. found, retain favor. division, 1906. 9122. 1865; 5650, 2d 2190—2197; 2744—2763; 2818—2825. 2194. 2195—2197. 2749—2762. 2819. 'acquitted sponsor 'I jury.' magistrate tribunal 302—307. Cong.Rec., 2822, 2823. 2834. 3044—3047. 3647. 8113, Cong. Rec. 4128. 'outgrown' Professor Kurland divergent forces. none. review.' 454. See, 306. ordinarily defenses—autrefois pardon—and advance fact,' 151, 65, (1931). indicate, Kissel, 218 601, 606, 124, 125, 1168 (1910); Barber, 219 72, 78—79, 209, 211—212, (1911). inconsistency. 236 237, Rabinowich, 238 78, 682, 1211 (1915). (1960), Brennan Stewart 441 443, 465—466 455—458, 472 474, add uncertainty, arguably 253—254, 1418—1419, (1966), 1560, dismissals self-incrimination Act—even Murdock appropriately bar. 65. taken. reprosecution upheld, 441—443, 465—466, fall compass 472—474. 23. 12, 'swept pleas,' 466, issue,' 12(b)(1). Nowhere 'tr(ied) 332 WHITE). Brother reaches confusing holding. 4744(a)(1), 'privilege prosecution,' 58, 1560. appealed, claiming footnote, rested 'sustaining (1931),' 1560 2. Having disposed inter alia, 'whether (against self-in-crimination) instance,' 'Federal states capable motion.' 12(b)(4) postpone permits hearings resolve Taken 332, whatsoever follows. 4744 inquiry, 'unless rebut privilege) inquiries.' affirmed because: '(1) (was) 'appellee waived importantly nowhere hint deferred exchange, (bill) applies arise limited, thinking saying thing, '(w)here party reminded arrest-of-judgment exception, minimize exception ground.' (Sen. Nelson) ('I wish lie'), Patterson) ('(A) ex necessitati attaches'); ('(T)hese verdict') supplied). explaining inconsistency, famed filed' defendants' innocence, Underlying conclusion—later disputed 2757—was Unlike case—who innocence—plainly case.' admits much, 2745—2763. 9033; 2192; 2751. Knox) ('(I)f line, sentence, contained vote cut out, cutting artistic intelligent borders.') applies. 19. introduced remove avoids terminology, sworn Double Jeopardy H.R. 14588, 91st H10274 (daily Oct. 4; Hearing Granting Decisions Sustaining Motions Suppress Evidence, Subcommittee Judiciary, ser. 15, (1954). irrespective involves nn. 53—54. supra; Brodson, 234 (C.A.7th 1956). 9, 83—88. Tr. Oral Arg. 1949), supports 30. 274—276, admitted cross-examination closing arguments, 'wilfulness' unlawful mails deliver lottery scheme.' stipulated addressee paraphernalia operation. apply lotteries affirmed, mailing attack. 280—281, 276—277. (1961), appellant, unlawfully delivering money union representative. memorandum transaction loan loan. 'admission' sham loan, pass remanded inconclusive authorities supplement generate resolved, purports express accepted. persuasive precedent. contendere sentencing, filed, reversed, reversed facts. 623, uncomfortable distinctions. applicability information. '(A judgment) tried, technicality, hand tangentially (1956). impelled acted. Douglas, Warren Black joined, dissented 'order position Green remotely dispositive contradistinction dissenters' applied; concedes sustained. 6. Failure named unconstitutionality (as construction) 331—332 6, 332-334, repeatedly ignores relief recognize justifying Clause, 16. real establishment rulings: both—as ibid. acquittal,' too. 327-328. Consistently dismisses defects instructing insulating intervening happened,' 19, serves highlight ipse dixit answer repeat clearer question-begging imagined. poses decided: why? citation 289-290. Constitution. Ball 'acquittals' incompatible Amendment. despite citation, authorize parallel currently legislation. throwing baby bathwater declare now. What 'acquittal'? answer, place. Here threatened absolute infra 335—346, noncircular discomfiture search vain pinned bar'—which unique 53—has confined. excluded 276. induction: seek I—O classification, 'sincerity' our, 274 obtaining barred. issue.' discusses different. inextricably 301, perfect grips intertwined. (whether act) Nelson), 340—341. sensible fact—whether Nobody reviewable; legally relevant. smpathize relevance 302-303 56. 282 886, 889—890. reasoning, easier needed developing things dealer. whereas contested. highly dubious, 312, relevant, reiterating posed 5, 'entered (Covington) (not substantial incrimination).' Majority 299. 306-307 61. passed—requiring trial—does then-Attorney waiting (United Co.), (D.C.N.D.Ill.1906) lie. 341—342. motivating natural escape justifies relationship creating enforcement institution exploring litigants; disservice who—seemingly interests—has concession: namely, extends Department's reinforced manner Similarly, problems, attempt overturn started, 2749; Hence, caution' bringing provisions: attached; arrest. Bacon); 2756 ('out caution harmony preceding paragraphs, reindicted'). 304 virtually appeal; modified opponents continued insist event 'verdict' JUSTICE, 308, 'judgment' 2820. explanation, Conference changed defendant.' Subsequent omitted proviso altogether (which version) vindicating

Category: 2