Document: 456 U.S. 667 102 S.Ct. 2083 72 L.Ed.2d 416 OREGON, Petitionerv.Bruce Alan KENNEDY. No. 80-1991. Argued March 29, 1982. Decided May 24, Syllabus During respondent's trial for theft in an Oregon state court, the State's expert witness testified as to value and identity of property involved. On cross-examination, he acknowledged that had once filed unrelated criminal complaint against respondent, but explained no action been taken on his complaint. redirect examination, court sustained a series objections prosecutor's questions seeking establish reasons why respondent. After eliciting from never done business with prosecutor asked: "Is because is crook?" The then granted motion mistrial. retrial, rejected contention Double Jeopardy Clause Fifth Amendment, made applicable States by Fourteenth barred further prosecution, finding "it was not intention this case cause mistrial." Respondent convicted, Court Appeals reversed, sustaining double jeopardy claim prosecutorial misconduct occasioned mistrial, even if intended amounted "overreaching." Held: 1. There merit contentions Appeals' decision based upon adequate independent ground, or alternative should be remanded order may clarify grounds which its judgment rested. A fair reading opinion below shows rested solely federal law. Pp. 670-671. 2. Where defendant successfully moves invoke bar second effort try him only conduct giving rise successful mistrial judicial provoke into moving more general test "overreaching" it offers virtually standards application such rule aid defendants class. By contrast, standard examines intent manageable apply. Since courts both agreed did intend her respondent end matter purposes Clause. 671-679. 49 Or.App. 415, 619 P.2d 948, reversed remanded. David B. Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., Salem, Or., petitioner. Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Newark, N. J., United amicus curiae, special leave Court. Donald C. Walker, Portland, Justice REHNQUIST delivered 1 decided Amendment Constitution retrial after first ended own motion. 948 (1980), cert. granted, 454 891, 385, 70 205 (1981). concluded instance Because took overly expansive view following resulting defendant's motion, we reverse judgment. 2 * charged oriental rug. trial, State called subject Middle Eastern rugs testify rug question. attorney apparently attempted bias part asking whether eventually fact, sought elicit line inquiry.1 colloquy ensued: 3 "Prosecutor: Have you ever Kennedys? 4 "Witness: No, I have not. 5 Is 6 7 When later retry moved dismiss charges jeopardy. hearing at testified, court2 found fact Or.App., 418, P.2d, 949. basis finding, held principles tried convicted. 8 appealed Appeals, claim. That set out what considered governing kind case: 9 "The said clause does reprosecution, '. . where circumstances develop attributable overreaching, necessitated error.' v. Jorn, 400 470, 485 [91 547, 557, 27 543] (197[1] ). However, error prompted 'motivated bad faith undertaken harass prejudice' defendant. Dinitz, 424 600, 611 [96 1075, 1081, 47 267] (1976). Accord, Rathbun, 37 259, 586 1136 (1978), other grounds, 287 Or. 421, [600] [392] [329] (1979)." Id., 417-418, 10 accepted court's Nevertheless, constituted viewed Although rehabilitate witness, expressed question "a direct personal attack character defendant." This left "Hobson's choice—either accept necessarily prejudiced jury, move face process being retried time." 950. 11 Before turning merits claim, are met ground. contends sufficiently uncertain ought remand See Delaware Prouse, 440 648, 652, 99 1391, 1395, 59 660 (1979); California Krivda, 409 33, 35, 93 32, 34 45 (1972). 12 We reject these contentions. convinces us With one exception, cases cited outlining "general rule" guided decisions citation rev'd, 600 392 (1979), clearly case, rather than Supreme Court's Rathbun statutory constitutional so recognized 430-431, 396-397. Even admitted doubt were intermixed, relied extent requires reach merits. Zacchini Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 562, 568, 97 2849, 2853, 53 965 (1977). II 13 Amendment3 protects repeated prosecutions same offense. 606, 96 1079, 267 As protection multiple prosecutions, affords "valued right completed particular tribunal." Wade Hunter, 336 684, 689, 69 834, 837, L.Ed. 974 (1949). Clause, however, offer guarantee will vindicate societal interest enforcement laws proceeding. 483-484, 91 556, 543 (1971) (plurality opinion); U.S., S.Ct., 837. If law otherwise, "the purpose protect society those guilty crimes frequently would frustrated denying power put again." Ibid. 14 terminated over objection defendant, classical lifting "manifest necessity" enunciated Story's Perez, Wheat. 579, 580, 165 (1824). Perez dealt most common form necessity": declared judge jury's declaration unable verdict. While situations our meeting standard, hung jury remains prototypical example. See, e.g., Arizona Washington, 434 497, 509, 98 824, 832, 54 717 (1978); Illinois Somerville, 410 458, 463, 1066, 1070, 35 425 (1973). provides sufficient interests having finally selected while time maintaining public's trials designed just judgments." supra, 15 But behest quite different come play. Here himself has elected terminate proceedings him, place 607-610, 1079-81. Indeed, inUnited Tateo, 377 467, 84 1587, 1589, 448 (1964), stated: "If Tateo requested judge's comments, there successful, Government retrying him" (emphasis original). 16 Our cases, indicated narrow exception retrial. DiFrancesco, 449 117, 130, 101 426, 433, 66 328 (1980); 611, 1081; 485, 557; 468, n. 3, 1590 3. under require delineate bounds fully previous cases. 17 principal threads making up embodied before empaneled wondered original inquiry election deemed renunciation all purposes. recognized, great difficulty applying actions "in goad [defendant] requesting 1081.4 In valued complete hollow shell inevitable prevent invocation circumstances. precise phrasing allow interpose defense prosecution stated less crystal clarity deal area said: 18 governmental requests thereby substantial burdens imposed prosecutions." 19 language seem follow limiting requests. immediately quoted went say: 20 "[The Clause] bars retrials 'bad-faith prosecutor,' threatens '[h]arassment accused successive afford favorable opportunity convict' 1081 (citation omitted). 21 broaden generalized "bad conduct" "harassment" prosecutor. It concluding amount 22 permit broader merely they their application. Every act rational during "prejudice" placing evidence leading guilt. Given complexity rules evidence, rare any some proffered objectionable court. Most undoubtedly curable simply refusing admitted, counsel admonition desist inquiry. 23 More serious infractions warrant granting applied urged today STEVENS, add another classification error, requiring dismissal indictment, without supplying assess error.5 24 prosecutor, though certainly entirely free practical difficulties, calls make fact. Inferring existence nonexistence objective facts familiar justice system. remembered resolution reviewable within system, system habeas corpus well, desirability easily principle apparent. 25 Prosecutorial might harassment justify therefore, absent subvert protections afforded constitutes deliberate forgo guilt innocence determined trier fact." Scott, 437 82, 93, 2187, 2195, 57 65 (1978). degree occurred, "[t]he important consideration, retain primary control course followed event error." 609, 1080. Only "goad" raise succeeded aborting 26 Were embrace broad somewhat amorphous adopted sure class aided. Knowing inevitably bring attempt jeopardy, presiding well loath grant mistrial.6 warranted law, course, could many instances appeal conviction present retrial.7 advantages secured Clause—the freedom extended anxiety, necessity confront government's once—would large lost verdict, reversal appeal, subsequent 608, adopting position now do, recognize earlier opinions suggest rule.8 example, derived plurality 557: 28 "Thus, ordinarily assumed remove barrier 29 footnote attached sentence explains, "where impropriety avoid acquittal, reprosecution barred." 12, 557 12. likewise statements largely Jorn effect. 30 confusion varying courts, deem best acknowledge justifiability light decisions. do lay down flat thereafter trial. hold limited 31 found, accepted, culminating termination Constitution. inconsistent opinion. 32 ordered. 33 POWELL, concurring. join holding determines conduct, justifying "subjective" often unknowable, emphasize court—in considering motion—should rely primarily case. ante, 675. arose pursuing examination key witness. identified single constituting Yet, few vigorously contested lawsuits—whether civil—in improper asked. adversarial vigorous advocacy encouraged. 36 close me factual beyond itself. Here, relevant strongly support absent. First, sequence overreaching prior prejudicial 669-670, Moreover, evident between presence resisted, also surprised by, App. 24-29. Finally, testified—and appellate agreed—that " 'intention mistrial.' Ante, 669. circumstances, 38 BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, concurring 39 concur STEVENS. noted nothing prevents remand, violate provision prohibits Ore.Const., Art. I, § interpreted (1979). South Dakota Opperman, 428 364, 396, 3092, 3110, 1000 (1976) (MARSHALL, dissenting), 247 N.W.2d 673 (S.D.1976) (original adhered law); Hass, 420 714, 726, 95 1215, 1223, 43 570 (1975) dissenting). 40 MARSHALL, BLACKMUN join, 41 Unless law,1 removes mistake precedents rule. Instead explaining conclusion required settled gratuitously lops off portion previously exception. exercise lawmaking wholly unnecessary compromises provided 42 represents policy finality benefit proceedings.2 acquitted convicted upheld prosecuted again offense.3 confined final judgments; protected proceeding.4 must balanced society's affording full jury.5 setting accordingly accommodated interests6 legitimate interests.7 accommodation reflected two govern permissibility Which applies turns retained substantially tainted initial proceeding.8 objection, barred.9 An exists justified necessity."10 for, consent to, reprosecution.11 prosecutor12 otherwise engaged "harassment."13 burden proving former manifest necessity, latter overreaching. 44 matter, useful explain retention occurred reasonable interests. cannot guaranteed proceeding error.14 unfair prejudice injected choose continue despite taint and, seek appeal.15 Or abort begin anew.16 true leaves choice,"17 suffers costs how exercises choice. consents go time, trouble, expense starting prosecution. chooses preserve completion sustainable.18 rationale permitting illustrated situation commits mistrial.19 choice anew inadequate For, play hands option—to proceeding—would option if, expect given intent, conviction. room balance competing type manipulation device. way, whereas tolerate incidental infringement sake obtaining verdict innocence, when seeks obtain advantage intentionally subverting interests, invariably tips favor reprosecution.20 46 Today recognizes properly encompasses reaches limit situation,21 rejecting recognition exception.22 tipped subscribe conditioned determination harbored committed error. almost inconceivable23 prove motivated instead defendant.24 shoulder strong consented subjective eviscerate exception.25 48 limitation extends intends outweigh For interested putting through embarrassment, expense, ordeal conviction.26 harassing commit errors indifferent mistrials unsustainable convictions. Another example inject enough ensure much conviction.27 covered because, hypothesis, conviction, Yet choice—to anew—can "hollow"28 To need divine exact motivation persuaded egregious rendered unmeaningful unwise identify factors inform judgment, several considerations recognizing intolerance intentional normally prerequisite bar.29 Second, real meaning going badly him,30 eliminated, least reduced, probability acquittal government.31 apparent observations compelling request 50 No proper vehicle identifying limits repeatedly shunned inflexible comparable entitled tribunal.32 like [manifest standard,] thus lies [its] capacity informed widely injury public interest." 691, 838, 974. inexactitude used exceptional surely concern equally ill-defined formula prosecutors scarcity invoked33 counsels pre-empting remain available needed.34 decide facts, Dinitz Lee States,35 give "abstract formula"36 context actual 51 petitioner,37 denied dismiss,38 correctly pointed cut back disavow liberal construction conclude established isolated early too determine anyone harassed who gist comment "crook" fairly elicited since past alleged improprieties questioning about towards therefore render proceed 52 cannot, totally fails disavowal precedents. "objections taken, rulings probably wrong." 417, 949 (1980). These conducted presided Benton Maryland, 395 784, 89 2056, 707 (1969), Due Process Amendment. Cf. 1590, (1964) ("If intimation resulted fear likely acquit accused, would, obtain"). hold, assessment proceed, little guidance apply STEVENS disagrees reaction cold record Appeals. "overreaching"; finds none. Neither articulates reaching respective conclusions can situations. adopt essentially standardless consistently imposes government persuading aside, unless insufficiency evidence. 130-131, STEVENS' criticizes suggestion espouses judges narrower prevailed. Post, 687-688, 22. criticism appears erroneous assumption rule, Tested correct all-encompassing denominated "overreaching," espouses, post, 689-690, find criticisms persuasive. alike branch "black letter law" predetermined number actually hypothesis inapplicable here. espoused anything law." admonished "[i]t judgment." traditionally weight deciding Gori States, 367 368, 81 1523, 1526, 901 (1961): "Where, judge, situated intelligently decision, ends obtained discontinuing Amendment." seems expect, defer "on scene" area, inexorably stage them sitting judge. And trying faithfully forgiven regarded extremely resolved continuing it. states "gratuitously lo[p] exception." 681. charge borne moderately careful point. 4, terms "fear accused." (1971), text, "prosecutorial overreaching"; (1976), speaks point "governmental requests," page prosecutor' "threatens prosecutions. .' last Term, "reprosecution barred, long deliberately request." 433. Thus, inaccurate single-mindedly this, "lopping off" However decided, faced differing lines authority recent precedents; 674-677, think better arguments adopt. we, rules; indicates justification principle, authority. am willing difficult declined review reasons. provision, see possible refusal predicated sound regardless compelled 479, 554, opinion). Ball, 163 662, 1192, 300. 503, 829, 717. 505, 830. 974, explained: double-jeopardy mean every competent tribunal Such create insuperable obstacle administration semblance oppressive practices prohibition aimed. unforeseeable arise impossible, failure agree again. discovered members biased duty discharge What show subordinated 688-689, 837 (footnote [the 'valued tribunal'] worthy repetition. completed, grossly unfair. increases financial emotional prolongs period stigmatized unresolved accusation wrongdoing, enhance risk innocent danger unfairness whenever aborted completed. Consequently, one, stand trial." 503-505, 829-30 (footnotes Society's interest, convict guilty. Rather, 1080, 267. 557. misconduct. confronted address context. invoked applied. expelling articulated prosecu- tions. 557], Downum 372 [734] 736 [83 1033 1034, 100]. [364] 369 [81 1523 901]; [400 U.S.] 489 559] (STEWART, dissenting); cf. 692 [69 838]. "But here banishment Wagner prospects acquittal. noted, 'was conduct' opening statement 'may disciplinary action,' [United ] 492 F.2d, [53] 60-61. accepting overreacted courtroom, ibid., suggest, contended, respondent." unsuccessfully claimed 432 23, 2141, 80. defective information attachment tentatively Treating extensively established: "It follows petitioner's 'intended provoke' Supra, 2147. underlying alleged: draft denial error—even assuming characterized—was product outlined Dinitz. drafting negligence, postpone taking until consideration far evidencing faith, last-minute timing continuance im- press importance petitioner placed charge." 33-34, 2147 descriptions see, 508, 831 ("using superior resources achieve tactical accused") omitted); 464, (error "that lend itself manipulation"); ("prosecutorial overreaching"); id., acquittal"); 11, result[ing] accused"). 484, 556. 11. 474, 1593 (Goldberg, dissenting) ("Many juries reversible committed, experienced lawyers forego jury"). "[I]t seriously prejudices completing jury. reasonably continuation result lengthy secured, objectives unlike served avoidance delay 1081. Westen & Drubel, Toward General Theory Jeopardy, 1978 S.Ct.Rev. 81, 101-102. wish shop deficiencies [his] unwarranted preview evidence." 94. Brock North Carolina, 344 424, 429, 73 349, 351, (Frankfurter, concurring). Compare 675-676 ("Prosecutorial Clause"), 676 ("Only 'goad' motion"), 679 ("But mistrial"). cutting application." 674. indicate generality virtue event, meaningful principled developed case-by-case inhibit practices. infra, 689-692. hardly standard. point, noteworthy recently misconduct" illustrate analysis rests "balancing fairness" 'bright line' distinction[s]." Finch 676, 680, 2909, 2911, 1048 (dissenting "not aided" 676. constitute supposes tend refuse corrected reprosecution. reasoning premised obligated "irrational." Commonwealth Potter, 478 Pa. 251, 282, 386 A.2d 918, 933 (1978) (Roberts, J.); 259-260, A.2d, 921-922 (Pomeroy, 103, 106, 130; generally Note, Jeopardy: Illusory Remedy Governmental Overreaching Trial, Buffalo L.Rev. 759, 773-776 cover, Warfield, 555, 227 177 (1967). "As validity lower tailors opposed another. concerned engages prejudicing stood Dixon's misconduct, subtle differences exist, suspect seldom able Government's motivation." Green 451 929, 931, 2, 2005, 2006 68 316 dissenting certiorari). take strategy train thought questionable wisdom. Shaw Garrison, F.Supp. 390 (ED La.1971), aff'd, 467 F.2d 113 (CA5 1972), denied, 1024, 317. argument Kessler, 530 1246, 1253 1976), "otherwise 'a inadmissible, prejudicial, irrelevant evidence—that is, committing known error—in hopes "getting away" it, ability 673. Deliberate inferred harsher impact readily inference drawn. Harlan aptly described "being able, all, confrontation believe favorably disposed fate." 486, 558. corresponding historical abhorrent practice terminating appeared insufficient convict. 507-508, 831. secondarily carry weight. "declaration convict" "[h]arassment 734, 736, 83 1033, 100. especially 425. criticized majority "abandon[ing] th[e] tradition [of elaboration increasing decided] [adopting] new balancing whose elements high level abstraction cases." 483, 1080 curiae cite One commentator Federal 760, "We unmindful, involved, stare decisis, circumspect observance wisdom institution transcending moment alone brought bear problems us. Furthermore, weigh generated changing concepts minimum fairness, interpretation requires. Instead, contours history. passage enough, mind rightness overturning highly quality overruling well-established precedent presented wanting preceded us." 355 184, 215, 78 221, 238, 199 13, supra. country Court." Brief Petitioner 43. "I reviewed transcript wording, put, put. find, impropriety. gray areas 'overreaching' means, looking cited, defined gross negligence receive wouldn't aggravation. don't misconduct." 53.

Category: 0