Document: 359 U.S. 187 79 S.Ct. 666 3 L.Ed.2d 729 Louis Joseph ABBATE and Michael Falcone, Petitioners,v.UNITED STATES of America. No. 7. Argued Oct. 22, 1958. Decided March 30, 1959. Mr. Charles A. Bellows, Chicago, Ill., for petitioners. Leonard B. Sand, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion Court. 1 During a strike against Southern Bell Telephone Telegraph Company, petitioners one McLeod were solicited in Illinois, by union official, Shelby, to dynamite facilities telephone company located States Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana. The four men met Chicago where Shelby gave plans be dynamited instructed them as method used. After left told that they would not go though with plan. McLeod, however, obtained went Mississippi destroy there. thereupon disclosed plot police. 2 petitioners, subsequently indicted State Illinois violating an statute making it crime conspire injure or property another.1 indictment describes 'communication belonging & Company' 'belonging American Company.' entered pleas guilty each sentenced three months' imprisonment. Thereafter indictments returned United District Court also Perry who pointed out dynamited. This does refer companies, but charges offense 18 U.S.C. § 371, U.S.C.A. 3712 conspiring destroy, contrary 1362, 1362,3 'certain works, material known coaxial repeater stations micro-wave towers * Tennessee Louisiana which essential integral parts systems means communication operated controlled States.' confessed his part conspiracy testified on federal trial petitioners' acts participation conspiracy. These same basis convictions. Government introduced proof Strategic Air Command, Civil Aeronautics Administration, Navy other agencies have exclusive use some circuits within cables carried destroyed. jury found defendants charged. On appeal Fifth Circuit Appeals reversed convictions error admission evidence, affirmed 247 F.2d 410. We granted certiorari limited consideration claim prosecutions, based prior state convictions, placed twice jeopardy Amendment, 355 902, 78 330, 258. 4 In Bartkus v. People 121, 676, order prosecutions was reverse this case. Here prosecution came after Thus case squarely raises question whether already prosecuted subjects those 'for put life limb' violation Amendment.4 5 do write clean slate deciding question. As early 1820 Houston Moore, Wheat. 1, L.Ed. 19, recognized issue arise from concurrent application laws.5 following decades number courts reached differing conclusions bar subsequent person acts.6 Against background thoroughly considered cases between 1847 1852. Fox Ohio, How. 410, 12 213, petitioner had been convicted passing counterfeit coin Ohio statute. She contended Amendment prohibited successive acts, therefore under prevent authorities prosecuting act counterfeiting laws. Thus, argument continued, should declare unconstitutional Supremacy Clause preserve effectiveness law enforcement. Moore leading bearing applied argued All members agreed prohibit even resulted prosecution. There division, what disposition required conclusion. majority reasoned since render Federal powerless enforce its laws there no declaring Clause, Const. art. 6. McLean, dissenting, thought 'the punishment Congress,' at page 439, undesirable result avoided unconstitutional, for, he said, 'Nothing can more repugnant than two punishments act,' id., 440. Three years later, Marigold, 9 560, 13 257, unanimous conviction discussed Fox. Court, holding could both apply conduct, accepted conclusion might constitute governments, draw commission penalties denounced either *.' 569. 6 third case, 14 13, 306, clear expression emerging principle did acts. That involved harboring escaped slave. A outlawed interference rights owner urged void 'as delinquent double single offence,' 19. rejected argument, saying: 7 'Every citizen is territory. He may said owe allegiance sovereigns, liable infraction either. offence transgression both. (if see fit) punish such offender, cannot doubted. Yet truly averred offender has punished offence; only committed offences, justly punishable. plead other; consequently, court decided, uttering false coin, cheat fraud practised citizens; and, Congress, proper exercise authority, 20. 8 McLean again dissented ground dissent Fox, namely, declared invalid very reason Congress.' Id., 21. reasoning these dictum, cases: Cruikshank, 92 542, 550, 23 588; Coleman 97 509, 518, 24 1118; Ex parte Siebold, 100 389, 25 717; Arjona, 120 479, 487, 628, 631, 30 728; Cross North Carolina, 132 131, 139, 10 47, 50, 33 287; re Loney, 134 372, 375, 584, 585, 949; Pettibone States, 148 197, 209, 547, 37 419; Crossley California, 168 640, 641, 242, 42 610; Sexton 189 319, 322—323, 543, 544—545, 47 833; Matter Heff, 197 488, 507, 506, 511, 49 848; Grafton 206 333, 353 354, 27 749, 754—755, 51 1084; R. Co. Railroad Comm'n Indiana, 236 445, 35 304, 305, 59 661; McKelvey 260 353, 358 359, 43 132, 134—135, 67 301. Typical statements adopting Chief Taney, circuit, Amy, C.C.D.Va.1859, Fed.Cas. p. 792, 811, 14,445, 'from nature our government, state, punishable both.' Culminating development Lanza, 377, 141, 314, directly presented Lanza Washington 'manufacturing, transporting, having possession' quantity liquor Volstead Act, 41 Stat. performing regard liquor. held It constitutionally make Lanza's criminal original powers reserved Tenth Eighteenth Amendment. situation hypothesized cases; sovereigns had, their constitutional punishing breach prohibition. Taft, held: 11 'We here sovereignties, deriving power different sources, capable dealing subject-matter Each government determining shall peace dignity exercising own sovereignty, other. 'It follows national sovereignties each. like all guaranties first eight amendments, applies proceedings therein forbidden second authority authority.' U.S., 382, 142. without Hebert Louisiana, 272 312, 103, 71 270, Act arising statutes: Westfall 274 256, 258, 629, 1036; Puerto Rico Shell Co., 302 253, 264—266, 58 167, 172—173, 82 235; Jerome 318 101, 105, 63 483, 486, 87 640; Screws 325 91, 108, 65 1031, 1039, 89 1495. And California Zook, 336 725, 752—753, 758, 69 841, 853 854, 856, 93 1105 (dissenting opinion). Similarly, many Courts established general barred acts.7 Petitioner asks us overrule Lanza. decline so. No persuasive advanced why we depart firmly principle. contrary, consequences follow if overruled. basic dilemma over century ago Ohio. out, are free prosecute laws, resultant enforcement must necessarily hindered. For example, insist resulting prison sentences sentence up five years. Such disparity will often when, defendants' impinge seriously interest interest. But suggest that, maintain enforcement, desirable completely displace crimes violate law. bring about marked change distribution administer justice, system principal responsibility defining crimes. See 109, 1495; 104—105, 485—486, 640. unless somehow insure particular offenses, efficiency suffer Double Jeopardy prevents prosecutions. Needless say, highly impractical attempt keep informed bear offenses. 15 compelled instant 16 Affirmed. 17 By BRENNAN. Government, brief oral judgment alternative upon rests decision. unnecessary delimit beyond clause when statutes require evidence protect interests. contention additional necessary convict statute, knowingly destroyed, designed interests, sanctity privately-owned property' injury 'means communication, gist offense' meaning vindicate governmental interests requiring support Although discuss suggested decision, I consider implications so disturbing comment.1 escape fact equally brought Indeed, supports citing Blockburger 284 299, 52 180, 76 306; Gore 357 386, 1280, 1405; Pinkerton 328 66 1180, 90 1489, Hoag New Jersey, 356 464, 829, 913, State. then obviously mere itself respective statutes. 19 However, whatever Fourteenth supra, consecutive imposed trial, e.g., think protecting true said: 'where transaction constitutes distinct statutory provisions, test determine offenses one, provision requires not.' 182, 306. But, far appears, neither 'same evidence' nor 'separate interests' sanctioned except several trial.2 accused, although separately cumulatively various aspects transactions, subject trial. If attempted multiple entirely presented, cf. 467, 832. protection harassed trials; accused marshal resources energies defense once alleged 'The underlying idea allowed repeated attempts individual offense, thereby subjecting him embarrassment, expense ordeal compelling live continuing anxiety insecurity Green 184, 187, 221, 223, 199. short, prohibition being punished, Ball, 163 662, 669, 1192, 1194, 300. 20 Obviously separate conduct effectively used prosecutor harass imposition conduct. always discretion judge impose sentences, whereas, applies, solely prosecutor's defend himself once. Furthermore, unlike raise possibility acquitted another essentially conduct.3 surpa; Ciucci 571, 839, 983. permit statutorily multiply allow rather merely enable 'wear multitude accumulated trials.' Palko Connecticut, 328, 149, 288. Repetitive harassment manner goes heart protection.4 thwarted because offends prime justification policy behind violated accused. adequately protected violated. See, 349 81, 82—83, 620, 621—622, 99 905; 1405. 21 Nielsen, 131 176, 672, 118, establishes governing defendant Mormon wife, congressional applicable territory Utah, males cohabiting woman. Subsequently adultery conviction. Despite prove conviction, i.e., married woman, unconstitutionally offense. 22 violence guarantee made service to, virtual extinction of, results try people just BLACK, whom CHIEF JUSTICE DOUGLAS concur, dissenting. Petitioners, Abbate blow certain adjoining States. receiving prison. now affirms violates affirmance, points 314. sustained handling law, time place. Some writers explained justified broad language Prohibition effect control traffic.1 Court's opinion, seemed rely dicta past assumed identical twice, 'offense' some, meaningful, sense different. legal logic thing too subtle me grasp. generally, 150, 695 opinion).2 26 am convinced Nation wholly purpose allowing together what, separately.3 place, conceive foreign nations other.4 most countries elsewhere jurisdiction.5 believe Bill Rights' safeguard intended establish trying man acquittal any court. much affront human dangerous freedom Governments throw Perhaps belief responsible proposed amendment First Congress while Rights considered. adopted apparently 'any Annals Cong., 753 (1789).6 fear limitation scope refused accept, rule 676. 38 Smith-Hurd Ill.Stat.Ann. (1957 Supp.) 139 provides pertinent part: 'If persons agree fraudulent malicious intent wrongfully wickedly deemed conspiracies outside Buckminster, 282 Ill. 177, 118 N.E. 497. 371 commit object conspiracy, fined $10,000 imprisoned years, relevant 1362 follows: 'Whoever willfully maliciously injures destroys telephone, cable, line, station, system, *' crime. provides: 'nor limb circumstances suggestion Government's 'no preclude enforcing law.' nothing record indicate Johnson, Term, related problem given plea autrefois acquit country. Furlong, 64. Compare, Mattison State, Mo. *421, Hendrick Commonwealth, Leigh, Va., 707, Randall, Aikens, Vt., 89, Harlan People, Doug., Mich., 207. Rios Cir., 1958, 256 173; Smith 1957, 243 877; Jolley 1956, 232 83; Levine, 1942, 129 745. author instrument forego convictions.' Wheeling Steel Corp. Glander, 337 562, 576, 1291, 1299, 1544 (separate Helvering Davis, 301 619, 639—640, 57 904, 908, 81 1307. Gavieres 220 338, 31 421, 55 489, upheld insulting public officer despite indecent behavior decision interpretation Philippine Islands, 'with long-established procedures alien common 228, authoritative provision. supra; 478, note 3, 838, 913 Flemister 207 28 129, 130, 252, decided assaults police officers times, 'one defy Burton 202 344, 688, 50 1057, demurrer, pleadings show count alleging receipt bribe corporation charged named corporation. Adams, 281 202, 269, 74 807, conceal embezzlement entries bank books later date, falsifying report. falsifications. falsifications embezzlement, themselves, thus times separately. acquittal. Lange, Wall. 163, 169, 172, 872; consistent English historically scope. Blackstone Commentaries *335—336; Hawkins, Pleas Crown (8th ed. 1824), pp. 515—529. doctrine collateral estoppel provide adequate protection. Of course, help previously convicted. acquitted, little ascertained controlling factual issues resolved 471—472, 834—835, 913; Dockery, F.Supp. 907; Halbrook, 36 345. procedural concept estoppel, 471, 834, less substantial Clause. collaterally attacked, whereas query failure challenged post-conviction motion relief. Sunal Large, 332 174, 178—179, 1588, 1590—1591, 91 1982. U.S.Const., Amend. XVIII. Note 55, Col.L.Rev. 83, n. 38. severely criticized Grant, Rule Successive Prosecutions, 32 1309; Prosecutions Nation: Common Law British Empire Comparisons, U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 1. today seems 385, 143, trials endanger runs, minor Criminals safe justice. Whatever merits context validity here. opinion), crime, take jurisdiction or, wishes power, define set minimum courts. addition, sham, shown constitutional. Edwards 233 Ky. 356, S.W.2d 746. Cf. Mason, 213 115, 125, 29 480, 53 725. appears easily safeguarded undergo Almost provisions similar Constitution. Brock 344 424, 429, 435, 73 349, 351, 456 Testa Katt, 330 810, 967. At offered discussion read: 'No subject, impeachment, offense.' 434 (1789). passed 753.

Category: 0