Document: 483 U.S. 1 107 S.Ct. 2680 97 L.Ed.2d James G. RICKETTS, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al., Petitionersv.John H. ADAMSON. No. 86-6. Argued April 1, 1987. Decided June 22, Syllabus Shortly after his trial for first-degree murder had commenced in an court, respondent and the prosecutor reached agreement whereby would plead guilty to second-degree testify against other parties involved murder, return a specified prison term actual incarceration time. The also provided that if refused "this entire is null void original charge will be automatically reinstated," "[i]n event this becomes void, then shall returned positions they were before agreement." court accepted plea proposed sentence, testified individuals, who convicted murder. Supreme Court reversed latter convictions, remanding retrial, sought respondent's further cooperation but was informed believed obligation under terminated when he sentenced. After compel him pretrial proceedings, State filed new information charging with denied motion quash on double jeopardy grounds, Court, special proceedings by respondent, vacated conviction reinstated charges, holding contemplated availability testimony individuals at both violated agreement's terms, waived defense it violated. declined offer individuals' sentenced death, judgment affirmed appeal. He unsuccessfully habeas corpus relief Federal District Appeals ultimately held rights Double Jeopardy Clause, concluding not such entering into agreement. Held: Respondent's prosecution did violate principles, since breach removed bar otherwise prevail, assuming state law lesser included offense Pp. 8-12. (a) record establishes understood meaning provisions concerning consequences promise testify. It significant "double jeopardy" specifically name agreement, its terms are precisely equivalent waiving defense. 9—10. (b) There no merit view there good-faith dispute about whether bound second time, could knowing intelligent waiver until extent decided. Respondent knew breached retried, chose seek construction rather than retrial. cannot escape Court's finding testify, indication fully understand potential seriousness position adopted. Cf. United States v. Scott, 437 82, 98 2187, 57 65. 10-12. (c) moment following decision offered comply point been ordered reinstated. have agreed relieved refusal able advance colorable argument testimonial owing, permitting enforce actually made does Clause. P. 12. 789 F.2d 722, reversed. WHITE, J., delivered opinion which REHNQUIST, C.J., POWELL, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, dissenting opinion, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, joined, post, p. William J. Schafer, III, Phoenix, Ariz., petitioners. Roy T. Englert, Jr., Washington, D.C., as amicus curiae supporting petitioners, leave Court. Timothy K. Ford, Seattle, Wash., respondent. Justice WHITE question Clause bars pleaded offense, sentenced, begun serving imprisonment. Ninth Circuit principles directed issuance writ corpus. We reverse. 2 In 1976, Donald Bolles, reporter Republic, fatally injured dynamite bomb exploded underneath car. arrested charged connection Bolles' death. commenced, while jury selection underway, two individuals—Max Dunlap Robison—who allegedly Specifically, "testify completely any or Federal, requested proper authorities all Don Bolles. . ." 731 (1986). "[s]hould defendant refuse should time untruthfully reinstated." Ibid.1 receive sentence 48-49 years, total 20 years months. January 1977, withheld imposition sentence. Thereafter, obligated Robison While their convictions sentences appeal, upon State, February 1980, remanded cases Dunlap, 125 Ariz. 104, 608 P.2d 41. This sparked now us. 3 preparation retrial Robison. On 3, however, counsel provide again only certain conditions met, including, among others, release from custody F.2d, 733.2 attorney 9, deemed 18, called proceedings. response questions, advice counsel, invoked Fifth Amendment privilege self-incrimination. judge, apprised State's letter 9 indicating considered answer questions. accept jurisdiction petition action review judge's decision. 4 May 8, grounds denied. challenged That reviewing transcripts hearing sentencing hearing, prosecutor, prosecutor's letter, "no hesitation" "the contemplates [respondent's] reversal," Adamson Superior Arizona, 579, 583, 611 932, 936 (1980), "violated Ibid.3 rejected claim, "by very waives violated." Id., 584, P.2d, 937. Finally, information, merely initial charge. Accordingly, conviction, charge, dismissed information. 5 these rulings, retrials, offer. federal relief, arguing misconstrued petition, affirmed, Hill, 667 1030 (1981), we certiorari. 455 992, 102 1619, 71 853 (1982). 6 direct Adamson, 136 250, 665 972, 464 865, 104 204, 78 178 (1983). asserting number claims relating petition; panel affirmed. 758 441 (1985). went en banc, banc reasoned "[i]t may well argued manner [respondent] intentional relinquishment known right 'spread record' adequate explanation." 728 (citing Boykin Alabama, 395 238, 242, 89 1709, 1711, 23 274 (1969)). Even implication, occurred here "[a]greeing charges reinstituted circumstances agreeing waived." 728. stated even read waive impliedly, effected because "defendant's constituting must taken knowledge so doing rights." 729. Because "reasonable testify," continued, "there announced court." Ibid. judges emphasized triggered " 'does relieve voluntary choice.' 740 (Brunetti, dissenting) (quoting 99, 2198, 65 (1978)). granted certiorari Appeals' barred 479 812, 62, 93 21 7 assume attached least December 1978, Assuming absent circumstances,4 precluded greater stands convicted. Brown Ohio, 432 161, 168, 2221, 2226, 53 187 (1977). submits, arrangement agree State. 8 Under bargained received substantial benefits.5 obtained "any Bolles" crimes. 731. Respondent, participant premeditated brutal accompanied guarantee serve prosecuted involvement specifies separate paragraphs flow promises. Paragraph provides (emphasis added). Similarly, 15 states 732. unquestionably provisions. At judge line line, pointedly asked Paragraphs 15. replied "Yes, sir," each question. App. 23-24, 28-29. score, do find significant, Appeals, Nor persuaded court's assertion clearer: occasioned status quo ante, case waive. And, specifying given is, approach render meaningless: categorically because, view, never protection. conceded oral "a found those circumstances. Tr. Oral Arg. 42-43. 10 unimpressed decided, But incredible believe anticipate decided court. Here failed live up promise. result occupied prior execution bargain: stood Trial (1978), supports conclusion. 11 close evidence defendant's dismiss counts indictment basis preindictment delay. Government appealing decision, "in defendant, deliberately choosing termination unrelated factual guilt innocence accused, suffers injury cognizable 98-99, S.Ct., 2198. choice." "voluntary choice" Scott referred move dismissal indictment, seeking portion empaneled jury, facing risk might submitted jury. similar choice. submit request providing pursuant provide, stand interpretation wrong, restore course, 12 obligations force breach; chose, perhaps strategic reasons gamble, proved erroneous. advised "is aware fact your office feel has completed and, further, attempt withdraw him, [and] killing Bolles first degree charge." 733. statement awareness operative underscores evident: clearly appreciated 13 point, already owing. struck different bargain, 14 ordered. 16 whom STEVENS join, dissenting. 17 critical ever Only demonstrating can plausibly By simply occurred, ignores important issue case. 18 I begin that, one defers conclude show conscious our support conclusion 19 * heart interpreted constitutional context. define responsibilities arise language Due Process Fourteenth Amendment, Amendment. correctly observes "assess independently effect Ante, n. 3. think errs, assessment proceed without independent examination, due process Adamson's actions Deferring responsibility determine whether, light construction, lost protection being placed twice jeopardy. requirements guided evaluating promises conduct prosecutors securing plea. Santobello New York, 404 257, 92 495, 30 427 (1971). reason ignore here. A. Without disturbing conclusions agreement,1 make observations central resolution First, contain explicit protection.2 Instead, &Par; implicit conditional act refusing required. 937 (1980). Therefore, predicated Second, agreement—that required retrials Max Robison—was reasonable. Nothing explicitly prove necessary. Moreover, events occur give. "will Exhibits A B, accompany it." 732 (CA9 1986) demanded "[t]he remain Pima County Sheriff date entry agrees transferred Sheriff. therefore reasonably communicated beyond duties agreement.3 construction. deferring erroneous, "reasonabl[e]," supported plain "[l]ogic, common sense." 22 sum, lose breaching though next step analysis agreement.4 B yet address comprehensive way rules appropriate disputes involving agreements. Nevertheless, seems clear commercial contract some useful analogy departure construing framing debate. E.g., Blackledge Allison, 431 63, 75, 6, 1621, 1630, 52 clear, more this, agreements contracts. values underlie law, govern relations between economic actors, coextensive criminal defendants Unlike contracts, construed created Constitution. 24 argues imply sent demand See 5. longer additional consideration testimony. 5, 2. 25 Neither courts, nor attempted explain why constituted agreement.5 Of sending nonperformance, nothing disagree send effect.6 argue anticipatory repudiation. 32-33. Such occurs party unequivocally informs intends honor contract. "[W]here renounced performance due, renunciation goes whole contract, absolute unequivocal, treat complete bring once." Roehm Horst, 7, 780, 782, 44 L.Ed. 953 (1900).7 rule plain: "announcing [one's] purpose default" destroys assurance future contract.8 26 conventional repudiation, therefore, announcement intention default constitutes breach.9 announce intention. To contrary, integrity what perceived unwarranted And insisting perform demanded, advanced objectively reasonable 27 sphere sort constitute York Life Ins. Co. Viglas, 297 672, 56 615, 80 971 (1936), addressed insurance company's notification policyholder henceforth continue paying disability benefits subsequent stop payment noting based unfounded facts. 678, 617. alone As Cardozo explained, unanimous Court: 28 "Repudiation none law. Petitioner disclaim duty shape accordance Far repudiating provisions, appealed authority endeavored apply them. insurer acting good faith giving notice contention over." 676, 616. 29 settled Viglas "[a]n promisor's although faith, unequivocal amounts rise breach." Kimel Missouri Co., 921, 923 (CA10 1934).10 explained: 'If dangerous thing controverted Every man peril cases, subjected alternative acquiescing adopted opponent, putting hazard interest courts imposed harsh, burdens weight. amount virtual denial insist honest, interpretation.' (citation omitted). 31 done repudiate Insurance Company Kimel. lawyers informed, telephone, responded advancing own Although area like areas free ambiguity,11 32 far actor, individual whose "contractual" relation governed determination controlled fundamental fairness grant party—here, unilateral exclusive patently unfair. odds basic premises constitutionality plea-bargaining system. Guilty pleas enforceable voluntarily intelligently. (1969). flatly inconsistent uphold intelligently future, mean whatever mean. Yet upholds today logic system requires acknowledgment 33 exotic apparatus enforcement. Indeed, civility. If offers notify fact, particularly continued adherence unable resolve through discussion, ready solution exists—either entered. steps fewer demands judicial here, fulfilled persons respect. C 34 unfairness end assumes, arguendo, offering erroneous still follow entitled retry acknowledges, immediately adopting stating willing testify.12 obstacle proceeding Robison; prejudice refiling, month's delay resulted over scope Thus, Adamson—testimony trials—was available it. 35 instead abandon Robison, capitalize regarded death penalty him. No doubt seemed easier benefit exhaustive role world contracts long nevertheless take minimize consequent damage. One prominent commentator explained way: 36 "If victim protect himself so. mitigate damages. duty, kind altruistic toward's one's contractual partner, partner wrong. cost, worse off having mitigated. Rather recognizes onerous enough needlessly exacerbated." C. Fried, Contract Promise 131 (1981) (footnote 37 macabre understatement observe exacerbated liability partner. suffered 1-month beginning incurred litigation costs. For "losses," pay, life. comparable imagined, enforced. course less acceptable Constitution.13 II 38 addition abdicating consider carefully elements case, violence address, "No person subject same offence put life limb." explanation how unsupported logic. 39 "A ordinarily abandonment privilege." Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 464, 58 1019, 1023, 82 1461 (1938). 'indulge every presumption waiver' rights," ibid., generally waivers knowing, intelligent, voluntary. circumstances, enforced meet standard. example, successfully moves mistrial. Dinitz, 424 600, 96 1075, 47 267 (1976). consideration, purposes retain primary control followed [prejudicial prosecutorial judicial] error." 609, 1080. immediate preferable prospect probable reversal later retrial." 610, 1081. 40 extended Dinitz moved "on accused." U.S., 2197-2198. Two judgment. dismiss, retained 93-94, 2194-2195, dismissal, unlike mistrial, final normally reprosecution, crucial ended midtrial, hence "without submission either [defendant's] innocence." 101, 2199. 41 "[In situation, defendant] 'deprived' valued go jury; public deprived 'one opportunity convict laws.' 434 [497, 509, 824, 832, 54 717 (1978) ]." 100, 42 relies exclusively rationale Scott. implications choice 43 obviously unexamined assumption claim did, evident moving mistrial chosen discussed Part I, supra, all. could, hindsight, strictly breach, took realized result, untenable. strict liability. involve midtrial terminate trial. someone breaking determined alleged reiterated judgment." 92, 2194. comparatively limited itself unique jurisprudence. id., 109, 2203, (BRENNAN, dissenting). carving out exception judgments (those entered innocence), reasoning used undercut guilt. 45 protecting substantial. protected compromising society's obtain conviction. consciously undermine judgment—he choose construe implied III 46 flouts process, reflects where enter peril, Constitution minimal imposes enterprises, where, blind deference prosecutors, abdicates dissent. Open Murder, First Degree imprisonment requiring mandatory twenty-five incarceration, file conditions—which characterized "demands"—included nonjail facility during clothing, afforded ex-wife son, fund son's education, resources establish identity outside custody, "full immunity crimes involved." 733-734. noted relied provides: "All hereby rejecting provision colloquy hearing. prosecuting "that necessary back testimony." 936. indicated concluded regarding sentencing, evinced "clear understanding" obligated. Appeals—and renews here—that "further testimony" mentioned wholly tried. second-guess assess rights, concomitant flowing therefrom are, within broad bounds reasonableness, matters disturb disposition issues. dissent's discourse thus illuminating irrelevant. questions so, appropriately left courts. dissent acknowledges "deference appropriate," 13, proceeds engage plenary nature purports afford detect advocates. misconceives interrelationship previously, once has, results consequences, rights. assessment, second-guessing license substitute interpretation. See, e.g., Ohio Johnson, 467 493, 2536, 81 425 (1984); Jeffers States, 137, 152, 2207, 2216, 168 (1977) (plurality). observed neither constitutionally compelled prohibited; "are consistent voluntariness intelligence—because side advantages exchanged concessions, bargained-for exchange." Mabry 504, 508, 2543, 2547, (1984). text my appropriate, note premised interpretive method biased modest support, taken. 5-7, four corners document" order introduce maintained demonstrate shared understanding justified evidentiary thereafter Nowhere words appear. Significantly, ¶ lists "rights" "underst[ood] [gave] pleading guilty," mention (reprinting full). Prior extensive "made appearances five consisting approximately days jurors heard verdicts resulting seven convictions. cross-examined oath 190 hours attorneys. cooperated 205 interrogative sessions. Fifty-five formal face-to-face in-depth sessions, approximately." 150-151. recall assumes occurred. outset, justification assumption—only examining II, infra. us replete indications petitioner's cases." 582, 935 identify "indications" were, appears (besides 3) referred. privilege. recounts, vulnerable reprosecution. ruled correctly. Once declared relinquished adhere i.e., indeed thereby Amicus Curiae behalf challenge. 19. Restatement (Second) Contracts § 250 (1981); Uniform Commercial Code 2-610, 1A U.L.A. 321 (1976 Supp.1987); White & R. Summers, 212-214 (1980); Corbin, 973 (1951); S. Williston, §§ 1322, 1323 (3d ed. 1968). Equitable Trust Western Pacific 244 F. 485, 502 (SDNY 1917) (L. Hand, J.), aff'd, 327 (CA2), cert. denied, 246 423, 62 932 (1918). classic Hochster De la Tour, El. Bl. 118 Eng. Rep. 922 (Q.B. 1853), doctrine repudiation evolved. Tour contracted hire Hochster, starting employment services needed. need wait suit. length, applied many others." 20, 787. Commentators draw illustrate principle. 128-130, (1981). 1323, pp. 132-133, 136-138 ("[A]n interpretation, asserted breach"); 973, 911 ("Where contracting differ legal effects, breach"). Since commentators refine distinction (but erroneous) "persistently condition precedent performance" evinces lack faith. Coast Engineering Merritt-Chapman Corp., 411 889, 895-896 1969) Others expansively. Bill's Coal Board Public Utilities, 682 883, 886 1982) (upholding party's urge "bad-faith" clause causing breach). Alluding difficulty determining "good faith," recommended abandoning favor standard liability, advances proves repudiated E. Farnsworth, 634-636 contrast, another acknowledged recognized communicate clarify modify compensate defects process," structured encourage work [disagreements contract] whenever possible renegotiation modification; hope achieve goal requests modification treated repudiation." Rosett, Partial, Qualified, Equivocal Repudiation Contract, Colum.L.Rev. 93, 108 policy thought meritorious sphere, intolerable context, infra, require ambiguous Conversely, point—after authoritative rendered—then curious unexplained vindictiveness. North Carolina Pearce, 711, 2072, 656 question, along several presented below, 725, remand.

Category: 0