Document: 421 U.S. 117 95 S.Ct. 1524 44 L.Ed.2d 15 George F. KUGLER, Jr., etc., et al., Petitioners,v.Edwin H. HELFANT. Edwin HELFANT, Petitioner, v. al. Nos. 74—80 and 74—277. Argued March 25, 1975. Decided April 28, Rehearings Denied June 9, See 1017, 2425, 2426. Syllabus. One Helfant, who was a Municipal Court judge member of the New Jersey bar, brought this action in District permanently to enjoin State Attorney General other officials from proceeding with prosecution an indictment which had grown out grand jury testimony that he given as result assertedly collusive coercion by Deputy members Supreme Court, whose significant involvement allegedly made it impossible for Helfant receive fair trial state courts. The issued order dismissing complaint, on basis Younger Harris, 401 37, 91 746, 27 669, held unless 'extraordinary circumstances' exist irreparable injury can be shown even absence bad faith harassment, federal court must not intervene way granting injunctive or declaratory relief against criminal prosecution. Appeals, though holding permanent injunction would inappropriate, reversed remanded case evidentiary hearing Helfant's charge entry judgment, based upon hearing, question whether his admissible trial. claims fedeal judicial intervention is warranted under Younger's exception because coercive have formidable supervisory administrative powers over system. Held: 1. claim cannot obtain courts without merit, facts alleges do bring matter within any rule so warrant Pp. 123-129. (a) system safeguards defendant like denial due process law appellate providing disqualify particular participating case, mandating disqualification participation might reasonably lead counsel believe biased, temporary assignment substitute Justices where quorum lacking. 126-128. (b) Four six (including then Chief Justice) participated alleged are no longer court, two remaining only one active conduct complained of. P. 128. (c) Justice head system, incumbent played part conduct. 2. Federal should refuse proceedings suppress use evidence when claimed been unlawfully obtained, Stefanelli Minard, 342 117, 72 118, 96 L.Ed. 138; Perez Ledesma, 82, 674, 701, judgment procedure ordered Appeals contravene basic policy interference prosecutions much sought Helfant. 129-131. 3 Cir., 500 F.2d 1188, vacated remanded. David S. Baime, East Orange, N.J., petitioners. Marvin D. Perskie, Wildwood, respondent. Mr. STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 pending him State.1 His complaint coerced into testifying before concerted indictment, charging obstruction justice false swearing, testimony. further role coercing state-court 2 dismissed ground principles precluded proceeding. A three-judge panel Third Circuit merits request injunction. 484 1277. Upon petition (hereinafter State), set en banc rehearing. full but, three judges dissenting, nonetheless court's dismissal. purpose coerced, admitted at directed its judgment. 1188. filed writ certiorari, seeking review Appeals' remand issue coercion. cross-petition challenging decision warranted. We granted both petitions consider propriety federal-court circumstances case. 419 1019, 492, 42 292. 4 * Judge bar. He subpoenaed appear October 18, 1972, jury. There advised target jury's investigation episode involving corruption justice. advice counsel, invoked constitutional privilege compulsory self-incrimination refused testify again November 8, 1972. On 6, received telephone call Administrative Director Courts requesting come conference room morning 8 just scheduled appearance.2 complied request. 5 In meeting interrogated concerning subject investigation, including matters public, also sharply questioned about Judge's invoking Justices' questions were minutes provided them conducting present after interview. 6 went allege questioning 'fearing loss Judgeship, but accreditation bar well,' indicated waive After leaving room, did jury, denying improper investigation. Some months later returned conspiracy obstruct justice, compounding felony, four counts swearing. 7 finally necessary courts: 'As intrusion disclosure factual involved Grand Jury during pendency intrustion communication between plaintiff herein suffer great, immediate, substantial harm attempt defend charges there has prejudicial collusion directly affecting plaintiff, intentional inadvertent Judicial Executive branches government. Plaintiff being obtained inter alia, collusion, deprivation plaintiff's rights too subtle cooperative defendants. Furthermore, event conviction presently him, recourse ultimately him. Thus, defense totally futile, level, Trial fully cognizant 'interest' charges, could seek pretrial motions appeals same injected itself deprived rights. conclusion engaging herein, reason seeks proceedings. . ..' II 9 supra, companion cases,3 reexamined governing cases, unequivocally reaffirmed 'the fundamental prosecutions.' U.S., 46, S.Ct., 751. This restraint, explained, founded 'basic doctrine equity jurisprudence act, particularly act restrain prosecution, moving party adequate remedy will if denied equitable relief.' Id., 43—44, 750. When asked interfere established doctrines comity reinforced demands federalism, require protected manner does unduly legitimate functioning systems States. 44, Accordingly, exceptional creating threat "both great immediate," either 10 Although cost, anxiety, inconvenience having single alone constitute 'irreparable injury' 'special legal sense term,' id., 751, left showing 'bad faith' 'harassment' responsible 54, 755, applied "flagrantly patently violative express prohibitions," 53, usual prerequisites harassment.' Ibid. explained '(o)nly cases proven harassment undertaken hope obtaining valid perhaps extraordinary appropriate.' 85, 677. Mitchum Foster, 407 225, 230—231, 92 2151, 2155 2156, 32 705. 11 restraint expressed short, premise ordinarily provides accused sufficient opportunity vindication Steffel Thompson, 415 452, 460, 94 1209, 1216, 39 505. Only render incapable fairly adjudicating issues it, relaxation deference accorded process. very nature circumstances,' course, makes anticipate define every situation create such proceedings.4 But whatever else required, 'extraordinary' extraordinarily pressing need immediate relief, merely presenting highly unusual situation. 12 As recognized, allegations must, purposes, assumed true.5 It position these justify enjoining view exercised entire agree litigation rule.6 13 Constitution shall 'administrative head' all State. Art. VI, § 7, '(t)he assign Judges Superior Divisions Parts may time transfer another, appears.' 14 vests 'plenary responsibility administration State.' De Stasio, 49 N.J. 247, 253, 229 A.2d 636, 639. 'Thus charged overall performance branch. Responsibility implies power achieve it.' re Mattera, 34 259, 272, 168 38, 45. clear, therefore, Justice, vested considerable authority initially determine allowed proceed. And, those predicated large measure some conclude considerations, however, objectivity irretrievably impaired far concerned. 16 allege, certainly assumed, capable impartially deciding simply previous To sure, conceivable who, effort curry favor avoid less desirable assignment, decide eye supposed attitudes superiors hierarchy. assigned hear right permits Rules 1:12—1 1:12—3. 17 level reach requires personally interested 'in action' themselves. Indeed, mandatory whenever 'which preclude unbiased parties so.' R. 1:12—1(e) (f) (emphasis added). If, disqualifications, requisite five-member quorum, authorized Rules. Rule 2:13—2. procedural guarantee 18 worth noting, futhermore, attended Of members, questioning. interrogator named among former court. 19 Moreover, wields extensive relied support prayer relief. And whatsoever forms core claim. sum, arguendo, participants reviewing assumption bias respect new Court.7 20 foundation. properly affirmed Court's dismissal III 21 'no depart general 'leaving generally arising laws .," F.2d, 1196,8 concluded admissibility order. factfinding narrow free appearance partiality. By thus assuring integrity interfering State's enforce own laws, reasoned, advance, rather than offend, mutual relationship poignantly described Black 'Our Federalism." 1197. accordingly required until 22 closely resembles course rejected 138. refusal entertain unlawful search. explained: 'If refrain staying outright try central validity statute based, how more reluctant piecemeal collateral issues.' 123, 121. 'federal secured search seizure.' 120, 120. Similarly, held: 'The arrests resolved tribunals, subject, certiorari appeal or, proper habeas corpus.' 84—85, 676. Cleary Bolger, 371 392, 83 385, 390. 23 These precedents clearly establish least through means.9 Even concern complete impartiality conceivably disruption proceedings, rationally believes exists 1:12—1(f), preserved objectivity. Part II, fact merit. 24 frustrated originally Samuels Mackell, 66, 73, 764, 768, 688. vacated, directions enter affirming complaint. 25 Vacated 26 DOUGLAS took consideration cases. BRENNAN U.S.C. 1983 jurisdiction grounded 28 1343(3). sitting Trenton, House Annex floor 1190. 688; Boyle Landry, 77, 758, 696; 701; Dyson Stein, 200, 769, 781; Byrne Karalexis, 216, 777, 792. scope 'other largely undefined gave example type bad-faith enforcement statute, quoting Watson Buck, 313 387, 402, 61 962, 967, 85 1416: "It flagrantly prohibitions clause, sentence paragraph, whomever apply it." 53—54, 755. stated: 'Other situations calling arise, point our attempting now specify what they be.' Gibson Berryhill, 411 564, 93 1689, 36 488, supplied another circumstances.' found unnecessary applies force civil, criminal, predicate lacking .. (T)he appellees alleged, concluded, Board Optometry incompetent adjudicate it. If correct regard, defer Board.' 577, 1697. limited preliminary injunction, motion dismiss pursuant Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 12(b)(6) findings conclusions law. determining stated granted, taken true. See, e.g., Cruz Beto, 405 319, 322, 1079, 1081, 31 263. argues actions deputy attorney demonstrate prosecutorial warranting intervention, context means reasonable expectation conviction. Nothing finding faith,' defined. However choose describe gravamen judiciary become assume influenced inducing internal quotation Douglas City Jeannette, 319 157, 163, 63 877, 880, 87 1324. Dombrowski Pfister, 380 479, 485 n. 3, 1116, 1120, noted: 'It difficult think halt while decides certain rendered inadmissible Fourteenth Amendment.'

Category: 8