Document: 397 U.S. 436 90 S.Ct. 1189 25 L.Ed.2d 469 Bob Fred ASHE, Petitioner,v.Harold R. SWENSON, Warden. No. 57. Argued Nov. 13, 1969. Decided April 6, 1970. Clark M. Clifford, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Gene E. Voigts, Jefferson City, Mo., respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of Court. 1 In Benton v. Maryland, 395 784, 89 2056, 23 707, Court held that Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy is enforceable States through Fourteenth Amendment. The question in this case whether State Missouri violated when it prosecuted petitioner a second time armed robbery circumstances here presented.1 2 Sometime early hours morning January 10, 1960, six men were engaged poker game basement home John Gladson at Lee's Summit, Missouri. Suddenly three or four masked men, with shotgun and pistols, broke into robbed each players money various articles personal property. robbers—and has never been clear there them—then fled car belonging to one victims robbery. Shortly thereafter stolen was discovered field, later arrested by state trooper while they walking on highway not far from where abandoned had found. another officer some distance away. 3 subsequently charged seven separate offenses—the theft car. May 1960 went trial charge robbing Donald Knight, participants game. At called Knight holdup itemized witnesses. Each them described f his own individual losses. proof an occurred property taken as well others unassailable. testimony regard consistent both internally others. But State's evidence robbers weak. Two witnesses thought only altogether, could identify them. Another victims, who petitioner's uncle marriage, said 'patrol station' he positively identified other accused holdup, but say voice 'sounded very much like' robbers. fourth participant did petitioner, 'size height, actions.' 4 cross-examination these brief, aimed primarily exposing weakness their identification testimony. Defense counsel made no attempt regarding itself claims testified without contradiction him watch, $250 cash, about $500 checks. His billfold, which found police possession robbery, admitted evidence. defense offered waived final argument. 5 judge instructed jury if 'any money' would sustain conviction.2 He also robbers, guilty under law even personally Knight.3 jury—though elaborate upon its verdict—found 'not due insufficient evidence.' 6 Six weeks brought again, game, man named Roberts. filed motion dismiss, based previous acquittal. overruled, began. most part same, though substantially stronger issue identity. For example, two first wholly unable now features, size, mannerisms matched those assailants. witness before size actions remembered unusual sound voice. further refined declining call whose conspicuously negative. instructions virtually identical given trial. This guilty, sentenced 35-year term penitentiary. 7 Supreme affirmed conviction, holding 'plea former must be denied.' Ashe, 350 S.W.2d 768, 771. A collateral attack conviction courts five years unsuccessful. 403 589. then present habeas corpus proceeding United District Western Missouri, claiming prosecution right twice put jeopardy. Considering bound court's decision Hoag New Jersey, 356 464, 78 829, 913, denied writ, although apparently finding merit claim.4 Appeals Eighth Circuit affirmed, authority supra.5 We granted certiorari consider important constitutional presents. 393 1115, 995, 22 121. 8 As correctly noted, operative facts are supra. defendant tried who, along others, up tavern. clear, identifying weak, interposed alibi defense. verdict guilty. indictment charging victim tavern holdup. After appeals proved unsuccessful, here. 9 Viewing presented solely terms process—whether course Jersey pursued 'led fundamental unfairness,' U.S., 467, 832—this declined reverse judgment because 'in shown record, we cannot process.'6 466, S.Ct., 832. unnecessary decide 'collateral estoppel'—the principle bars relitigation between same parties issues actually determined trial—is process requirement criminal trial, since accepted Jersey's determination acquittal any event give rise such estoppel. 471, 829. And view took presented, not, course, approach consideration estoppel ingredient 10 doctrine puts perspective quite different perceived Supra. longer process, Amendment's embodied guarantee, applicability particular matter left court within broad bounds 'fundamental fairness,' fact examination entire record. Cf. York Times Co. Sullivan, 376 254, 285, 84 710, 728—729, 11 686; Niemotko 340 268, 271, 71 325, 327, 95 L.Ed. 267; Watts Indiana, 338 49, 51, 69 1347, 1348, 93 1801; Chambers Florida, 309 227, 229, 60 472, 473—474, 716; Norris Alabama, 294 587, 590, 55 579, 79 1074. 'Collateral estoppel' awkward phrase, stands extremely our adversary system justice. It means simply ultimate once valid judgment, again litigated future lawsuit. Although developed civil litigation, established rule federal least Court's more than 50 ago Oppenheimer, 242 85, 37 68, 61 161. Holmes case, 'It safeguards person, so often rightly mentioned solemn reverence, less protect liability debt.' 87, 69.7 law, therefore, '(i)t too late suggest fully applicable either lack 'mutuality' may reflect belief Government met higher burden exacted cases Government's whole necessarily every link chain.' Kramer, 289 F.2d 909, 913. 12 decisions have applied hypertechnical archaic 19th century pleading book, realism rationality. Where general verdict, usually requires 'examine record prior proceeding, taking account pleadings, evidence, charge, relevant matter, conclude rational grounded seeks foreclose consideration.'8 inquiry 'must set practical frame viewed eye all proceedings.' Sealfon States, 332 575, 68 237, 240. Any test technically restrictive would, amount rejection proceedings, acquittal.9 13 Straightforward application can lead conclusion. utterly devoid indication rationally occurred, single conceivable dispute not. make Roberts impermissible. 14 determined, then, light supra, do hesitate hold is.10 whatever else embrace, North Carolina Pearce, 711, 717, 2072, 2076, surely protects acquitted having 'run gantlet' time. Green 355 184, 190, 221, 225, 199. 15 validly offenses players. received total punishments convicted victims. whether, after constitutionally hale new litigate again. 16 certainly charge. Once conflicting reasonable doubt hope might find convincing. situation here, related name victim, bearing 17 brief frankly conceded following acquittal, treated dry run prosecution: 'No prosecutor felt provable and, lost, what good attorney presentation turn events trial.' precisely forbids. 18 reversed, remanded proceedings opinion. 19 ordered. 20 Reversed remanded. 21 BLACK, concurring. I join reject implication so-called fairness' appropriate standard point past continuing relevancy today areas law. my fallacious idea judge's sense fundamentally 'fair' 'unfair' should ever serve substitute explicit, written provisions Bill Rights. One prohibition putting On several occasions stated Double Jeopardy Clause Federal together subjecting hazards possible alleged offense. Bartkus Illinois, 359 121, 150, 676, 695, 684 (1959) (dissenting opinion); Abbate 187, 201, 666, 674, 729, Cuicci 571, 839, 841, 983 (1958) statement); 199 (1957). amply demonstrates basic essential Constitution's Accordingly, reasons agree reversed. HARLAN, 24 If traditional standards adhere 913 (1958), believing regardless reach estoppel, open treat differently. However, acceded 744, 2085, 656 (1969), 707 which, over dissent, imposes am satisfied Ashe's play. Hence, doing wish explicit understanding way intimates embraces degree 'same transaction' concept reflected concurring Brother BRENNAN. BRENNAN, whom DOUGLAS MARSHALL join, 26 incorporates therefore inapplicable nevertheless prosecutions, Roberts, grew out episode, threfore think prohibited prosecuting 196—201, 671 729 (separate opinion). 27 My conclusion precluded case. Three entered customers. indictments indictment, respects except customer victim. convicted. courts, rejecting Hoag's double-jeopardy claim, construed statute making robberies, place occasion, construction courts' claim upheld unless necessary sufficient secure first. differed identifications each; otherwise covered ground trials. Due Process 'always prevents allowing arising act transaction separately, done. long recognized essence federalism widest latitude administration systems justice.' 468, 833. 'the latitude,' decided Hoag, person shall 'be subject offense life limb' accorded retroactive effect holding. means, decisions, constitutes offence' apply alike proceedings; incongruous determine validity depending asserted court. Malloy Hogan, 378 1, 11, 1489, 1495, 653 (1964). 28 'that resources power (shall) allowed repeated attempts convict offense, thereby embarrassment, expense ordeal compelling live anxiety insecurity * *.' 223, expressed multiple prosecutions offence.' phrase appeared common-law articulations principle,1 questions precise meaning rarely arose 18th century, Rights adopted authoritatively defined.2 29 When common finally definition, King Vandercomb, Leach 708, 720, 168 Eng.Rep. 455, 461 (Crown 1796), evidence' test, provided little protection 30 '(U)nless prisoner rpoof contained bar second.' 31 soon followed majority American jurisdictions, deficiencies obvious. does enforce annuls guarantee. episode involves each. E.g., N.J. 496, 122 A.2d 628, (1956), aff'd, (1958). permits divisible chronologically discrete crimes. Johnson Commonwealth, 201 Ky. 314, 256 S.W. 388 (1923) (each 75 hands 'offense'). Even perspectives statutes. Elder, 65 Ind. 282 (1879). Given tendency modern legislation divide phrases numerous crimes, opportunities esentially unitary frightening. tradition unreviewable prosecutorial discretion concerning initiation scope prosecution,3 potentialities abuse inherent intolerable.4 32 required. expounded adoption Amendment, 197 198 n. 2, 671—673, squarely required involving trials; indeed, context rejected. See re Nielsen, 131 176, 672, 33 118 (1889), discussed 674. defensible English peculiar procedure, severely restricted prosecutors combine charges trial.5 vivid contrast, procedure generally allows freedom, judicial control, prosecute crimes transaction.6 view, prosecution, limited circumstances,7 grow act, occurrence, transaction. enforces ancient vexatious Clause, responds increasingly widespread recognition consolidation lawsuit occurrence best promotes justice, economy, convenience.8 Modern rules recognition. Mine Workers Gibbs, 383 715, 724—726, 86 1130, 1137—1139, 218 (1966). 1935 Law Institute replaced test.9 England, too, surviving joinder test.10 Rules Criminal Procedure liberally encourage joining Rule 8(a) provides similar character, arise connected transactions form scheme plan. 8(b) defendants. informations included information.11 These represent considered proper structuring litigation. 34 Civil Procedure. pervasive purpose require makes compulsory (upon pain bar) counterclaims plaintiff's arose. extends compulsion third-party claims, counterclaims, cross-claims, claims. 19, 20, provide intervention action. class action; see particularly 23(b)(3). 35 addition, principles res judicata caution plaintiff splitting pendent jurisdiction furthered trials cases. Moreover, three-judge hear statutory convening. See, e.g., Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm., 371 287—288, 83 397, 398 399, 317 (1963); Smith, 392 309, 88 2128, 1118 (1968). 36 true developments dimension, many permissive discretionary rather mandatory. Flexibility governing structure litigation order opportunity shape private lawsuits, injustice, harassment, undue result. Some flexibility desirable traditions. barrier tyranny overzealous prosecutor. considerations convenience propelled movement greater force vexed offense.12 Yet, interpreted incorporate defendants anomaly intolerable. condemned nearly half words today: 'If cases, abhors multiplicity suits, yet watchful crown oppress subject, government citizen, prosecutions. (This) offence mildest form, better residue go unpunished, sustaining sanction practice rendered instrument oppression citizen.' Cooper, N.J.L. 361, 375—376 (1833). 38 highlights necessity test. involved players—Gladson, Freeman, Goodwin, McClendon, stole Seven covering seventh Petitioner's information Knight. Since justification trying infer reserve failed obtain Indeed, concedes argues exercise discretion. 39 Four Their conflicted saw one, Brown. McClendon during Brown, Larson, Johnson; heard sure. participated anyone. Johnson, Under cross-examination, recognize voice, face hands. maintained height' worn outsized clothing, connect 40 witness. Gladson, previously able man—Brown—now number details memory Knight's trial—he still actions, mouth. expected, inevitable conviction. 41 plainly organized links missing chain unhelpful hesitant uncertain became detailed, positive, expansive experience uneasiness allow chance plug holes empty 'repeated attempts' touch forcing times episode. 42 Fortunately reversed clearly resolved favor contested There aided toresolve additional evidence.13 correction depend availability Abuse foremost among feared evils led inclusion That evil will effectively avoided, thus worthy ends, embody standard. Then mounting successive growing absence showing unavoidable case.14 43 Chief BURGER, dissenting. 44 Constitution part: 'nor limb Nothing language gloss placed provision remotely justifies treatment accords collateral-estoppel doctrine. authors commands decides today; truly expanding beyond bounds—or needs—of legitimate objectives preclude harassment accused. 45 Certain dispute. scene 'a friendly poker' 1960. men—Gladson Roberts—were playing cards basement. While progress, sawed-off house forced They ordered remove trousers tied up, heart condition seemed aware. Substantial amounts currency checks table items persons During period being basement, Mrs. Gladson's bedroom floors above, ripped telephone there, her cord, removed wedding ring finger. 46 men—Ashe, Brown—were Larson 47 Ashe No presented. men—Knight, Roberts—testified testify she ill day BRENNAN stated, victims' robbers: 48 'Gladson one. petitioner.' Ante, 458. 49 whatever, right, closing arguments jury; nonetheless, returned somewhat unorthodox Then, June relating asleep entered, awoke her, cash ring. robber stayed room minutes, scuffling talking She Ashe. 51 omits facts. corroborated place. robbers—Brown, Ashe—as minutes robbery; minutes. formed original group including room. short keys, two. shows band. Roberts—the it. 52 Thereafter, majority, reviewed Circuit; rejected claim. II 53 firm commitment 'for Court, like expanded test.1 Blockburger 284 299, 304, 180, 182, 76 306 (1932), relevant, 54 (i.e., charge) not.' (Emphasis added). Clearly fact—robbery Roberts—which offense-defining What done superimpose same-evidence novel gloss. 56 rests series beginning 161 (1916), involve supervisory system. finds 'ingredient' applies eluded judges justices centuries; endowed perception predecessors lacked area encounters 57 concept—originally product litigation—is strange mutant transformed control justified conserving additionally providing finality needed plan future. ordinarily side interest initial Here complainant party Very properly, conservation private, public lesser values Also, parties, i.e., presumably foreclosed litigating trial.2 58 Perhaps, comes surprise rationale majority's before. legal reasoning colorful graphic used originally Black, intended mean something entirely different. full gantlet (emphasis added); 225 (1957), involved. Green, murder degree, secured nothing jeopardy—once charge'—of murder, compelled defend retrial. 59 Today's step ought basis casual reliance 'gantlet' lifted used. slogan. commentators concluded standing reason use trials.3 relying brand answer; aspect levels.4 Finally, tells us rationality.' 444. 62 With deference pose question: Roberts? To borrow opinion, conceivably 'hypertechnical archaic' stilted formalisms 17th stretch 63 examining concludes robbers—that time.5 reached present, applies. analysis completely disregards confusion injected Gladson. me, psychoanalyze jury, adduced reasonably indicating Certainly, equivocal male 'acting together' instruction trials6 actual card players, believed home. hand, identity troubled jury. believed, indicated robber, Brown located, already preparing departure 64 considers 'lead conclusion,' susceptible interpretation base compelling. bases sheer 'guesswork,'7 review convictions corpus. Guy Donald, 206 406, 63, 64, 245 (1906): 'As debated artificial danger technical definition certain name, deduce consequences relation grounds applied. *' III 66 BRENNAN's concurrence transaction, or, characterize it, frolic, hence, crime. approach, totally overlooks significance individuals. 67 'single frolic' notion; urged Court.8 theses underlying notion 'indivisible.' answer conduct readily intensely personal; person. me demeans dignity human personality individuality talk assaults elevates rights high place—as should—ought homogenized lump clay. grant status accused, less. suggested separately punished collectively tried, trend severance avoid prjudice 'spill over' another. 70 holds impact serious ordinary housebreaking, physical assault understand break enter, rob, kill joined killers killings killed two, three, Or alter crime breaking college dormitory assaulting girls. is, effect, third acts 'free,' trial—something frantically device avoid, succeed avoiding. reality 72 wise Black Jackson Denno, 368, 401, 407—408, 1774, 1797, 908 (1964), struck down 'is accord guarantees invalid improve Constitution.' 'retroactivity' Maryland. 656, Benton, unanimously 'retroactive' 'The instructs you believe doubt, County 10th January, herein, BOB FRED alias BOBBY alone knowingly acting concert arms Don unlawfully feloniously carried away presence will, violence fear immediate injury felonious intent convert use, honest permanently deprive ownership consent your finding, Robbery, First Degree, verdict.' equally commission crime, committed jointly acting. unlawful purpose, furtherance deed persons.' 'However persuasive dissenting opinions be, duty follow until expresses contrary view. Certainly factual excellent reexamination An transcript real contest, distinguished dispute, respective players.' Swenson, F.Supp. 871, 873. difficult lower forecast assurance decade divided closely possible. rapidly developing sensitive relationship. feel, however, task dictates, despite closeness decision, moment books read. ' 399 40, 46. 'circumstance' relied unexpected failure earlier investigation. pleaded attempted impeach that, events, try Yager arbitrary lacking amounted denial concepts constituting process." 469—470, us, 'unexpected events' characterized. Coffey 116 436, 442—443, 437, 440, 684; Frank Mangum, 237 333 334, 582, 589, 969; 92 180; De Angelo, 138 466; Curzio, 170 354; Yawn 244 235; Cowart, 903. Mayers & Yarbrough, Bis Vexari: Trials Successive Prosecutions, 74 Harv.L.Rev. 38—39. supra; permitted disbelieved substantial uncontradicted staggering. fact, 'determined' impossible imagine prove element conviction.' 38. Lugar, Law, Res Judicata, Iowa L.Rev. 317. Comment, Twice Jeopardy, Yale L.J. 262; Hunvald, Mo.L.Rev. 369, 369—375; Collateral Estoppel Crimes Arising From Same Transaction, 513; McLaren, Doctrine Judicata Applied Trial Cases, Wash.L.Rev. 198. true, requirement. Until perhaps ago, few situations calling application. statutes, categories relatively distinct. likely yield Statutory Implementation Clauses: Life Moribund Constitutional Guarantee, 339, 342. recent times, advent specificity draftsmanship extraordinary proliferation overlapping offenses, spin startingly Note, Multiple-Count Indictment, 132, 133. multiplied, potential unfair abusive reprosecutions pronounced. 262, 279—280; Concept Identity Offenses, Brooklyn 79, 82. need prevent abuses safeguard firmly embedded 7, Whether academic concern Vaux's Case, Co.Rep. a, 992, 993 (K.B. 1591); Hale, Pleas Crown **240—255 ('same felony'); W. Hawkins, 515 (8th ed. 1824); Blackstone, Commentaries *335. J. Sigler, 1—37 (1969). Baker, Prosecutor—Initiation Prosecution, J.Crim.L. C. 770 (1933); Baker Long, Prosecuting Attorney—Powers Duties 1025 (1934); Kaplan, Prosecutorial Discretion—A N.W.U.L.Rev. 174 (1965); Prosecutor's Discretion, 103 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1057 (1955); Discretion Exercised Montana Attorneys Mont.L.Rev. (1966); Initiation Complaints, So.Cal.L.Rev. 519 Several subsidiary eliminate anomalies resulting Thus, another, reprosecution Similarly, doctrines some, much, relief extreme permissiveness Kirchheimer, Act, Offense 513 (1949). Numerous exceptions Horack, Multiple Consequences Single Minn.L.Rev. 805 (1937). So hardly all; succeeded preventing abuse. Frankfurter said, 'Since derived history, dictionary, considering (its) origin line growth." 199, 230 history comprehensively examined Friedland, pp. 161—194. Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. 8, 14; Ill.Rev.Stat., c. 38, § 3—3 (1967); Ann., A.L.R.2d 841 completed discovered, diligence police, commencement exception permit prosecution. Diaz 223 442, 448—449, 250, 251, 500 (1912). ALI, Model Penal Code, Proposed Official Draft §§ 1.07(2), 1.09(1)(b) (1962); Connelly D.P.P., (1964) A.C. 1254, 1360. infra. Admittedly, self-defining. Guidance obtained interpreting 8(a). analogies perfect policy differ, guidance encountered great difficulty reaching results Moore, Practice 13.13 (1968); 1A Barron A. Holtzoff, 394 (Wright 1960). Additional 'common nucleus fact.' UMW 725, 1138 (1966), purposes jurisdiction. Gibbs Pendent Jurisdiction, 81 657, 660—662 Compare Administration Draft: (1935) (1962). 3—3, 3—4(b)(1) (1967). 1254. prejudicial Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 42. joinder, useful informed prepare accordingly. rest ordered, proofs repetitious, vexatious, enable strengthen subsequent Joinder defendants, analysis. Sixth problems. Bruton 391 123, 1620, 476 And, ends distinct independent select prosecuted; explained Abbate, 198—199, 672—673, imposition limit Congress split choice charges. Gore 357 386, 395, 1280, 1285—1286, 1405 (Douglas, J., dissenting). clause prohibit cumulative penalties Thus unpunished. outer impose 397—398, 1286—1287 (Brennan, enunciated 1796). passengers collided driven seriously action how distorted boundaries. 29—41 (1960); (1959); cf. 283—292 (1965). weight factor warrant elevating level Amendments. True deserves strain society urgent protecting endorse premium aggravated Arguably madea alibi, Vietnam Army records etc., says probably decided. baseless. ante, 439 3. criticism 'guesswork' verdicts, 285 473, 835 (Warren, C.J., dissenting), 477, 837 dissenting)

Category: 0