Document: 410 U.S. 458 93 S.Ct. 1066 35 L.Ed.2d 425 State of ILLINOIS, Petitioner,v.Donald SOMERVILLE. No. 71—692. Argued Nov. 13, 1972. Decided Feb. 27, 1973. Syllabus Respondent was brought to trial under an indictment which, it developed before any evidence presented, contained a defect that Illinois law could not be cured by amendment and on appeal asserted overturn judgment conviction. The judge declared mistrial over respondent's objection, following which respondent reindicted, tried, convicted. He thereafter petitioned for habeas corpus, ultimately granted the ground that, jeopardy having attached when jury initially impaneled sworn, second constituted double jeopardy. Held: Under circumstances this case, judge's action in declaring rational determination designed implement legitimate state policy, with no suggestion policy manipulated prejudice. declaration therefore required 'manifest necessity' 'ends public justice,' Double Jeopardy Clause Fifth Amendment as made applicable States Fourteenth did bar retrial. Pp. 461—471. 447 F.2d 733, reversed. Edward J. Gildea, Chicago, Ill., petitioner. Ronald P. Alwin, respondent. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 We must here decide whether defendant's because court concluded insufficient charge crime, necessarily prevents from subsequently trying defendant valid indictment. hold met requirement our cases, since reasonably have justice' would defeated allowed continue. Therefore, Amendment, through Due Process Benton v. Maryland, 395 784, 89 2056, 23 707 (1969), retrial 2 * On March 19, 1964, indicted grand crime theft. case called sworn November 1, 1965. day, had been prosecuting attorney realized fatally deficient allege intended permanently deprive owner his property. criminal statute, such intent is necessary element theft,1 failure renders crime. But Constitution at time,2 sole means proceeding may commenced against defendant. further provides only formal defects, one, amendment. combined operation these rules procedure substantive meant 'jurisdictional'; waived object, or post-conviction final 3 Faced situation, proceedings defective useless State's motion mistrial. 3, handed down alleging requisite intent. arraigned two weeks after first aborted, raised claim over-ruled, shortly thereafter. returned verdict guilty, sentence imposed, courts upheld then sought federal conviction contrary prohibition Amendments. Seventh Circuit affirmed denial corpus prior decision United Jorn, 400 470, 91 547, 27 543 (1971). petition certiorari granted, remanded reconsideration light Jorn Downum States, 372 734, 83 1033, 10 100 (1963). remand, held should because, although he tried acquitted Ball, 163 662, 16 1192, 41 L.Ed. 300 (1896), objection precluded 733 For reasons stated below, we reverse judgment. II 4 fountainhead construing context Perez, 9 Wheat. 579 (1824). Story, writing unanimous Court, set forth standards determining retrial, constitutes within meaning Amendment. In holding agree either acquittal defendant, Story wrote: 5 'We think, all cases nature, has invested Courts justice authority discharge giving verdict, whenever, their opinion, taking into consideration, there manifest necessity act, ends otherwise defeated. They are exercise sound discretion subject; impossible define circumstances, render proper interfere. To sure, power ought used greatest caution, urgent very plain obvious causes; and, capital especially, extremely careful how they interfere chances life, favour prisoner. But, all, right order discharge; security faithful, sound, conscientious discretion, rests, this, other upon responsibility Judges, oaths office.' Id., 580. 6 This formulation, consistently adhered Court subsequent decisions, abjures application mechanical formula propriety varying often unique situations arising during course trial. broad reserved reiterated decisions Wade Hunter, 336 684, 69 834, 974 (1949), reaffirming flexible standard, 7 asked adopt Cornero (v. 48 69) rule petitioner contends absence witnesses can never justify discontinuance Such rigid inconsistent guilding principles Perez adhere. Those command considering terminated without take 'all account' thereby forbid abstract formula. value thus lies capacity informed widely different injury defendants interest.' 691, S.Ct., 838. 8 Similarly, Gori 367 364, 81 1523, 901 (1961), again underscored breadth therefor, declare 'Where, deemed compelling judge, who best situated intelligently make decision, substantial cannot attained discontinuing trial, consent even retried Amendment.' 368, 1526. reviewing counsel scrutinized determine whether, particular dictated justice.' interests seeing prosecution proceed conviction, need forsaken formulation preclude vindication interest. termed supra, 580 22 or, more precisely, 'the public's interest fair trials end just judgments,' 689 U.S., 837 disregarded 11 Logan 144 263, 12 617, 36 429 (1892), justified juries unable reach verdicts, therefore, Cf. Keerl Montana, 213 135, 29 469, 53 734 (1909); Dreyer Illinois, 187 71, 28, 47 79 (1902). Simmons 142 148, 171, 968 (1891), dismissed jury, one jurors acquainted probably prejudiced Government; properly exercised 'to prevent defeat 154, 172. Thompson 155 271, 15 73, 39 146 (1894), learned disqualified, member Lovato New Mexico, 242 199, 37 107, 61 244 (1916), demurred indictment, demurrer overruled, sworn. district attorney, realizing pleaded moved arraignment pleading; discharged, same impaneled, guilty rendered. both those reprosecution. While virtually turn facts escape meaningful categorization, see supra; possible distill them general approach, premised 'public enunciated presented case. A exercises if impartial reached, reached but reversed due procedural error If reversal certainty, serve require Government its proof when, succeeded automatically stripped success appellate court. substantially situation supra. basis lend itself prosecutorial manipulation involve entirely question, cf. above instant 13 charged six counts mail theft, forging uttering stolen checks. selected morning, instructed return afternoon. When returned, key witness, present. knew, selection swearing witness found served subpoena. discharged motions dismiss prosecute continue four. reversing convictions jeopardy, emphasized '(e)ach facts,' 737, 1035 reason therefor justify, terms necessity,' 14 taxpayer willfully assisting preparation fraudulent income tax returns. Prior testimony, defense suggested warned constitutional compulsory self-incrimination. him rights, willing testify Internal Revenue Service agent contacted rights. however, believe witness' IRS so him, refused allow until consulted attorney. After learning remaining four were 'similarly situated,' surmising they, too, give opportunity consult attorneys. sustaining plea attempted plurality emphasizing importance concluded: 'It apparent record consideration given possibility continuance; indeed, acted abruptly discharging prosecutor disposed suggest continuance, object do so. examines surrounding seems abundantly effort assure account, sua sponte Wheat., conclude appellee's reprosecution violate provision 487, 558. III advances arguments support conclusion obtained though defective, 'attaches' instituting resulted Alternatively, argues interprets narrowly limiting manifestly necessary, requires affirmance. Emphasizing "valued completed tribunal," 484 557 quoting 689, 837, depriving right. 17 Respondent's contention precisely type rigid, eschewed seminal Perez. major premise syllogism—that precludes retrial—is overlooks crucial Court's reasoning There, three men murder; convicted acquitted. failing victim died year day assault. Ball 140 118, 761, 377 (1891). original defendants; all. originally acquitted, obviously influenced fact proceeded verdict. focus reflected opinion: 18 '(W)e resist issue undertaking murder, objected respect, killing. 19 '. . (T)he accused, equally put .' 669, 1194 (emphasis added). 20 Downum, held, argues, 'attached' begins, rather than ends, inquiry bars That, rationale cases. Only 21 established procedure, abuse discretion. Since will confronted claims arise large measure diverse existing 50 States. Federal quick simply does conform corresponding statute rule, policy. Last Term, recognizing fact, writ improvidently involving stemming dismissal 'rules pleading peculiar to' individual followed Duncan Tennessee, 405 127, 92 785, 31 86 (1972). exist was, matter law, curable become final, released deprives 'jurisdiction.' prohibiting defects indictments preserving each insist jury. faced similar Simmons, Lovato, Thompson, might obtaining keeping persuaded constitutionally unavailable implemented conducting appeal, wasting time, energy, money concerned. Here, implementation manner prejudice unlike where entailed delay also operated post-jeopardy continuance strengthen minimal, why corrected. Given standard Gori, say Our relied below respondent, opposite conclusion. excise various portions result divorcing language serves distort holdings. That dealt fairly described erratic. lack harm mistrial, opposed loss drastic alternatives. deprived forced yield, judgments.' replete approving references latter stated: 24 'The double-jeopardy mean every time competent tribunal entitled go free fails create insuperable obstacle administration many semblance oppressive practices aimed. There unforeseeable making completion impossible, event purpose protect society crimes frequently frustrated denying again. And instances discovered indicated members biased It settled duty direct What said enough show valued some subordinated 688—689, 836—837 (footnote omitted; emphasis 25 abort lightly undertaken, fate determined weighty one. Nor demonstrable additional invocation important countervailing judicial administration. Ibid. implements reasonable aborts produced upset parties, outweighed competing demand justice. 26 Reversed. WHITE, whom DOUGLAS BRENNAN join, dissenting. 28 purposes Clause, attaches commences 479—480, 554, (1971); Green 355 184, 188, 78 221, 223, 199 (1957); 688, 836, point arrived taken. Clearly, Somerville placed despite law. 796—797, 2063—2064, (1969); (1896). question remains, present once begun, aborted twice being Constitution. addressed problem mistrials most recently abjured mechanical, per se preferred rely approach announced analysis, takes consideration' 'sound discretion' determines 'there defeated.' See 480—481, 555 (opinion Harlan, J.); id., 492, 560 (Stewart, J., dissenting); 367—369, 1525—1526, (1961); 370—373, 1527—1528 (Douglas, 735—736, 1033—1034; 740, 1036 (Clark, dissenting). Despite generality guidelines evolved past reviewed variety circumstances. 30 example, clear constantly mind continued exposure embarrassment, anxiety, expense, restrictions liberty, well preserve tribunal." 484, 557, 837. '(I)n always temper able, confrontation favorably fate.' 486, 32 grounds permit efforts secure attendance been, not, subpoenaed. Although misconduct mere oversight mistake claimed proved, policies accepted, sufficient raise barrier 33 mistakenly, apparently nonparty showing harass enhance trial; complete preview Government's specific shown. Noting 'must bear potential risks society's unwillingness unnecessarily subject repeated prosecution,' 558, submitting initial invoke override concern enforcing laws another chance try charged. neither 34 Very considerations govern asserts directed instance State, Somerville's occasioned official drafting indictment—error unaccompanied bad faith, overreaching, later Jorn. exact extent emotional physical suffered period between open debate, gainsaid lost 'his option perhaps, dispute acquittal.' 557. serious dissent, rejected view protects themselves underwrote independent Both quite reviewable overridden except necessity.' majority recognizes one,' finds desire avoid 'conducting (on indictment), concerned.' paramount 'keeping jury.' completely ignores is, possibility—the 'end acquittal,' 557—that makes addition, majority's balancing gives too little weight fundamental place seeks serve, framework protections establishes conduct trial.' 479 554 Apparently jury' indictments. Conceding reasonableness remembered inability amend come play, necessitated, unless part framing committed. defective—only failed execute frame indictment—does necessitate 'a complicated affair manage,' ibid., previously thought excuse applying Clause. instance, 'unquestionably factor considered litigants sides responsible professional clash adversary process,' 485—486, cautioned. recognize preparedness directly implicates underpinning speedy guarantee.' 487—488, 558 (Burger, C.J., concurring); 1035. error, necessitated Judged I find, words majority, 'important administration' case; find compensate mistake. 38 Finally, notes question.' 479, 554; 187—188, 223. Surely faith overreaching record. However, seem particularly appropriate. 'This short, presents novel unheard-of-spectacle, officer, whose business correct bill, openly own inaccuracy neglect, pretended merits first. practice tolerated, accused end? place, good, otherwise, ten passes; for, read probable penetration discern defects. His counsel, assigned content hearing substance charge, looking further; hardly, accord, think examine detect errors it. Many hundreds, now prison erroneous indictments, who, merits.' 667—668, 1194. respectfully dissent. 40 MARSHALL, explicitly disclaims overrules recent (1971), Ante, 1073. eviscerates appeared judges guidance what objection. Today revert totally unstructured analysis strengths articulation legal series successive clearer vaguely seen earlier. Cases help delineate factors affect situations. did. me, today abandons factors, adopts 'balancing' test terms, improperly applies 42 purports balance ante, 463, 'in verdict,' assuring 464. placing alter most, constant consider weighing availability depends. 43 At strikes essentially determinative Downum: accused's 'valued tribunal,' quoted 556. excised isolated passages it, 469; core cursory reading disclose. See, e.g., 484—486, 556—557. 44 By mischaracterizing today's result. shows struck here. alternatives available midst correction. prosecutor's negligence. Because essential presentation concerning six. Trial ready. District Judge precipitately rights prospective witnesses. Again, alternative interrupting briefly attorneys invoked. 45 superficial examination 'reversal (would be) certainly' 'knowingly obtain(ing) unauthorized control property, wit: thirteen hundred dollars Currency, property Zayre Birdgeview, Inc., corporation, knowing violation Chapter 38, Section 16—1(d) Revised Statutes.' Petition Writ Certiorari 3. named '(i)ntend(ed) use benefit property.' Ill.Rev.Stat., c. § 16—1(d)(1) 46 treats unquestionably defective. And, held. People Matthews, 122 Ill.App.2d 264, 258 N.E.2d 378 (1970); Hayn, 116 241, 253 575 (1969). answer decision. Code Criminal Procedure amended name offense statutory alleged violated, nature elements 111—3(a) sufficiently detailed meet 'contains charged, 'and apprises prepared meet," Hagner 285 427, 431, 52 417, 419, 76 861 (1932); Russell 369 749, 82 1038, 240 (1962). Had aware questions archaic mode jurisdictional nonwaivable. Conscientious certainly attempt anticipate interpretation contribute pointing out implications interpretations. doing so, shape misgivings about course, prevented Chief Underwood 'reversion overly technical, highly unrealistic undesirable formalism useful purpose,' interpreting Procedure. ex rel. Ledford Brantley, Ill.2d 423, 263 (1970) (Underwood, 1965 forestalled unhappy development. Thus, risking rulings guarantee reversal. fully protected already chosen. ignore tenor previous decisional perhaps necessity. alternative. suggests charade. forcing almost useless. persuade guilt. concedes 467; assume continuing inevitable. structure problems assumption appears presumption innocence. 49 Once shown existed, here, led sufficient, alternatives, overcome Here run counter today. characterize Judge's behavior 'erratic,' does, 469. witnesses, unknowingly implicated activities testified, hardly irrational. It, policy.' courses action, irrationality promote. 51 agreed description inquiry. seemed weighed concluding mischaracterized stake involved says, 468. Rather, waivable Ordinarily, jurisdiction institution invaded province another. allocation competence institutions. petit invade improper body acts area body. desirable keep single invading surely outweigh 'defendant's tribunal.' (1949). Henry Mississippi, 379 443, 85 564, 408 (1965). (1963), harder succeeds distinguishing misrepresenting 'that manipulation.' 740—742, 1036, 1037 dissenting), clearly negligent oversight. Except attenuated sense induce fail steps oversights, understand negligence lends manipulation. draw adequate presence witness.1 54 controlling.2 As pursue alternative, negligence, Downum. tradition elaboration increasing decided. abandon new high level abstraction deciding Art. II, (1967). 1970, retained paragraph I, 7. stating prophylactic rule. evil avoided intentional difficult Proof inevitably hard by. relations prosecutors places reluctant necessary. abuses misdrawing less manipulating based foregoing analysis—an nowhere opinion—a gained weak far longer two-day capitalized drawing So restrictively read. believe, expansively. me created judge; source outside control. says 'an reached,' juror whole, uncontrolled prosecutor, (1824); (1891); (1894).

Category: 0