Document: 456 U.S. 1 102 S.Ct. 1497 71 L.Ed.2d 696 UNITED STATES, Petitionerv.Jeffrey R. MacDONALD. No. 80-1582. Argued Dec. 7, 1981. Decided March 31, 1982. Syllabus In May 1970, the Army formally charged respondent, a captain in Medical Corps, with murders earlier that year of his pregnant wife and two children on military reservation. Later year, charges were dismissed respondent was honorably discharged basis hardship, but at Justice Department's request Criminal Investigation Division (CID) continued its investigation homicides. June 1972, CID forwarded report recommending further investigation, Department, 1974, ultimately presented matter to grand jury, which returned an indictment January 1975, charging three murders. On interlocutory appeal from District Court's denial respondent's motion dismiss indictment, Court Appeals reversed, holding delay between 1972 submission Department 1974 convening jury violated Sixth Amendment right speedy trial. After this decision could not trial grounds until after completion trial, 435 850, 98 1547, 56 18, tried convicted. The again held indictment. Held: time dismissal subsequent civilian may be considered determining whether bringing under Amendment. Pp. 6-10. (a) Speedy Trial Clause does apply period before defendant is indicted, arrested, or otherwise officially accused. Although prior arrest give rise due process claim Fifth any applicable statute limitations, no arises are pending. Similarly, undue Government, acting good faith, dismisses must scrutinized Due Process Clause, Clause. Once dismissed, guarantee designed primarily minimize possibility lengthy incarceration reduce lesser, nevertheless substantial, impairment liberty imposed accused while released bail, shorten disruption life caused by presence unresolved criminal charges—is longer applicable. Following charges, restraint liberty, employment, strain financial resources, exposure public obloquy, stress anxiety greater than it upon anyone openly subject investigation. 6-9. (b) erred holding, essence, pending against during entire later charges. subjected other adverse consequences flowing initial continuing they he arrest, custody, "criminal prosecution" returned. He legally constitutionally same posture as though had been made; free go about affairs, practice profession, continue life. 9-10. 632 F.2d 258 635 1115, reversed remanded. Alan I. Horowitz, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Ralph S. Spritzer, Philadelphia, Pa., respondent. Chief BURGER delivered opinion Court. We granted certiorari decide should murder rights 2 * facts case issue; heard saw all witnesses tangible evidence. only point raised here petitioner involves legal issue Accordingly, brief summary called for. early morning February 17, daughters, aged 5, brutally murdered their home Fort Bragg, N.C., At time, MacDonald, physician, Corps stationed Bragg. When police arrived scene following call found victims dead MacDonald unconscious multiple stab wounds, most them superficial, one life-threatening chest wound lung collapse. 3 interviews, told bizarre ritualistic murder. stated asleep couch when awakened wife's screams. said woman blond hair wearing floppy hat, white boots, short skirt carrying lighted candle chanting "acid groovy; kill pigs."1 claimed men standing near attacked him, tearing pajama top, stabbing clubbing him into unconsciousness. awoke, daughters dead. trying revive covering body police. lost consciousness arrived. 4 Physical evidence contradicted MacDonald's account gave suspicion himself have committed crime.2 April 6, advised suspect confined quarters. 1, 1970. accordance Article 32 Uniform Code Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 832, Commanding General unit appointed officer investigate hearing total witnesses, investigating submitted specifications dismissed. October 23, December honorable discharge based hardship.3 5 however, 13-volume Additional reports November August 1973. evaluation those reports, jury. 24, 6 Prior Federal Court,4 moved part denied motion, allowed constitutional v. United States, 531 196 (CA4 1976). completed. States 18 (1978). 7 then convicted counts second-degree count first-degree sentenced consecutive terms imprisonment. appeal, divided panel Fourth Circuit (1980).5 court rehearing en banc evenly vote. 1115 (1980). 8 certiorari, 451 1016, 101 3004, 69 387 (1981), we reverse.6 II 9 provides "[i]n prosecutions, shall enjoy . ." A literal reading suggests attaches formal charge instituted prosecution begins. Marion, 404 307, 313, 92 455, 459, 30 468 (1971), accused: 11 "On face, protection activated has begun extends persons who 'accused' course prosecution. These provisions would seem afford yet accused, nor require Government discover, investigate, accuse person within particular time. appear will move dispatch appropriate assure proper disposition him." 12 addition evaluating claim. Dillingham 423 64, 96 303, 46 205 (1975). Amendment, see Lovasco, 431 783, 788-789, 97 2044, 2047-48, 52 752 (1977), statutes 13 application drops Any like filed, Clause.7 14 identified interests served supra, 320, S.Ct., 463: 15 "Inordinate impair defendant's ability present effective defense. But major evils protected exist quite apart actual possible prejudice accused's To detain, assert probable cause believe arrestee crime. Arrest act seriously interfere bail not, disrupt drain curtail associations, create family friends." 16 See also Barker Wingo, 407 514, 532-533, 2182, 2192-2193, 33 (1972). 17 thus intended prevent defense passage time; interest limitations. applicable.8 point, formerly is, most, position Certainly knowledge ongoing stress, discomfort, perhaps certain normal This true filed where defendants received considerable press attention.9 outstanding, personal certainly impaired degree "a citizen suffers restraints [no longer] accusation: situation compare arrested answer." U.S., 321, 463. III 19 held, charges.10 disagree. case, homicide initiated terminated less crimes committed; that, there convicted.11 During intervening period, prosecution." Inevitably, undesirable accusation Indeed, even lodged Army, comprehensive consequences. However, once made.12 20 acknowledged, concedes, own manuevers and, event, sufficient violate judgment remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 21 Reversed 22 STEVENS, concurring judgment. 23 For reasons MARSHALL Part opinion, I conclude suspended Army's 1970 return 1975. clearly correct stating question unacceptable "close." Post, 21. Since fairly identifies countervailing factors, need state allowing proceed cautiously deliberately making final prosecute such serious offense decisive importance me case. therefore concur 24 MARSHALL, whom BRENNAN BLACKMUN join, dissenting. 25 morning, Dr. Jeffrey requested help. quarters, suffering including threatened His young murdered. dropped reopened handed over 1972. did convene more years later. "indifference, negligence, ineptitude." 196, 207 1976) (MacDonald ). indicted murder, authorities dropped. commenced summer 1979. 26 Confronted these facts, majority reaches facile conclusion implicated sovereign initiates, drops, reinitiates That justified language teachings our cases, hopelessly odds sensible understanding policies. dissent. 27 Because scants relevant review somewhat detail. conducted Bureau Investigation, well local violation 118 918. testified. testified extensively cross-examined. hearing, exhaustive "because matters set forth true." I, 200. recommended Helena Stoeckley, several she involved accepted recommendation December, discharge. 28 terminate date. Within month discharge, specific renewed extensive wide-ranging. 699 interviews sent weapons victims' clothing FBI laboratory July 1971. 1971, completed Department. supplemental transmitted 1973, "no significant new undertaken none pursued 1973 convened later." 206. Attorney Eastern North Carolina six months suggested 29 fully aware investigations. California resumed medicine. interviewed him. From repeatedly complete offered submit interviews. declined advise terminate. wrote "this active remain consideration foreseeable future." 201 n. 6. There correspondence. 1974. waived silent five days. Numerous testified, bodies exhumed, reinvestigated aspects An 31 legitimate reason—not docket congestion—for presentation explained: "The leisurely pace 1975 appears government's convenience. Assistant Carolina, familiar expressed harsher assessment delay. magistrate known government since analyzed F.B.I. latter explained analysis tardy 'because bureaucracy.' " 206 (footnotes omitted). FBI's failure justification mentioned denying grounds. App. Appellant 79-5253 (CA4), p. 46. post-trial decision, belief "the put much date was." 485 F.Supp. 1087, 1089 (EDNC 1979). 34 majority's simple: offers absolutely technically simplicity price. price, disrespect important precedents Court, 35 "In prosecutions," recites, trial." publicly obtained crime sovereign. Nothing continuously order obtain benefits right. Rather, natural continues protect attempts try 36 Our extent address issue, contradict view. Klopfer 386 213, 87 988, (1967), prosecutor entered "nolle prosequi leave" first ended mistrial. Under procedure, custody obligation court, reinstate court. indefinite postponement prosecution, objection, "clearly" Id., 222, 993. reasoned "may opportunity exonerate discretion solicitor throughout unlimited restore calendar. means can restored calendar 216, 990. course, custody. required take affirmative steps prosecution; actively Klopfer. applied. 37 teaches suffered person, warrants protection. relied majority, entirely teaching. Marion hardly official made, dropping second wipes slate clean. 38 designating appellees individuals." 324, 465. (emphasis added). "would time." 459. suffer anxiety, special form engendered accusation. "Arrest whether, made dropped, precisely if ever made. 39 adverts procedural impediment extending indictment: inquiry brought raise difficult problems proof. 13, 463, 13; id., successive prosecutions charge, difficulties do exist: attach accusation, simple determine.1 short, suspend by, inconsistent with, cases.2 40 plainly ignores fundamental because disappear simply temporarily Especially resolution remains acute. all, revealed seriousness threat initially paints unrealistic portrait "is, investigation." Ante, 8-9. 41 painfully soon inquired progress proposed speed "realized favorable [military] end efforts convict Prudence obliged retain attorneys expense remained another F.2d, 204 (footnote It absurd suggest strain, obloquy never brought. 42 insistence eliminates protections policies decisions. senseless. reason can, indeed must, weighed determines violated. No purpose ignoring purposes.3 (1972), rejected inflexible approach favor sensitive balancing process." 533, 2193 Lower opinions indicate responsibility faithfully circumstances prosecutions.4 43 answer protects purposeful tactical causes constraint limited, serves prosecutorial purpose.5 (1977). According limited substantial conducting relatively unrestricted pre-accusation 790-795, 2048-2051, lesser already investigated defendant, better position, properly shoulders responsibility, reinvestigate reprosecute reasonable promptness. Moreover, above, peculiar described Marion. Thus, affirmatively demonstrate reason, neglect indifference, 44 denigrates presents potential abuse. approach, indefinitely bad faith,6 unable show very proceeded assumption pre-indictment consequence. 206, 17. fear consequence today's unreasonable unjustifiable become commonplace. 45 find close. examining four factors enunciated supra—length delay, assertion right, defendant—I agree focus 26-month 1974.7 Neither As Appeals' concluded: primary two-year either disagreement groups prosecuted, just bureaucracy (the contention U. Attorney)." 258, 262 1980) II). conduct tests convened, demonstrated leads earlier. 47 undeniably asserted vigorously often, beginning Government's pressing prevented filing grounds, invoked meaningful way open strength powerful indication prejudice. 531, 2192. 48 last factor, evaluate record, Proof necessary violation. Moore Arizona, 414 25, 94 188, 183 (1973) (per curiam). Moore, without demanded unjustified least years, period. proof record clear forms prejudice, intrusive publicity, expense, career. 49 although speculative, buttress Stoeckley's testimony confused helpful critical whose principal group intruders Stoeckley reliable witness, testify memory events night, contradiction some her out-of-court statements. II, 264-265. Her loss obviously became credible likewise inevitable "coaching" impact defense, minimized effectively cross-examination, occurred earlier.8 263-264. unusual recited slight differences influenced verdict.9 50 Balancing finding undoubtedly renewing carefully brought, avoiding haste, especially By token, indifference neglect. reaching informed legitimate; vague, unexplained references internal cannot justify indecision. reveals pretrial affirm ruling IV 51 disappointing exercise strained logic judicial illusion. Suspending real governmental interest. warned "allowing doctrinaire concepts submerge practical demands Smith Hooey, 393 374, 381, 89 575, 578, 607 (1969). fails heed advice. foregoing reasons, generally description apparently seen rushed call. focused Stoeckley. heavy user heroin, opium, mescaline, LSD, marihuana, drugs; days began telling people accompanied murderers watched commit crimes. She wore mourning dress displayed funeral wreath day funeral. confirmed returning apartment 4:30 killings company fitting descriptions given MacDonald. night "stoned" night. did, admit owned frequently wig pair boots destroyed few might connect episode. Threads supposedly torn living room, master bedroom, body, children's room. puncture holes far fewer wounds. able identify bloodstains each victim, location support story. Blood matching type glasses top. Fragments surgical gloves victims; fragments came sink house. barred ex rel. Toth Quarles, 350 11, 76 100 L.Ed. (1955). jurisdiction property. §§ 7(3), 1111. number issues involving rulings judge. resulted rights. reach issues. issues, instead leaving remand. evidentiary verdict. unanimously decided children. Respondent challenge verdict itself. agrees determination Congress enacting Act 3161 et seq. Act, "to effect sixth amendment .," S.Rep.No. 93-1021, (1974), reinstated, reinstatement included computing commence. 3161(d), 3161(h)(6). Most Courts considering reached See, e.g., Hillegas, 578 453, 457-458 (CA2 1978); Arnold McCarthy, 566 1377, 1383 (CA9 Martin, 543 577 (CA6 1976), cert. denied, 429 1050, 762, 766 (1977); Bishton, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 51, 55, 463 887, 891 seemingly contrary result Avalos, 541 1100 (1976), 430 970, 1656, 363 However facts; district district. cases cited dissenting post, 17-18, n.2, First, Seventh, Tenth Circuits consider discuss us. contrary. There, indefinitely. activate "without order" 214, 989. sense so apply. operating fraudulent improvement business. noted Washington Post ran series articles business, reported predicted indictments forthcoming. 309, 457. original concluded "that functional equivalent arrest" purposes. Judge Craven, dissenting, disagreed followed file 209. petition expressly triggered rights; express issue. "by single capacity 204. Of guarantees engaged allegation acted faith dismissing reinstituted evade guarantee. unit, officer, untrue. nothing securing Department; late massive accumulated Plainly accused—perhaps physician—for heinous brutal small hastily devastating fact responsible prosecutors weigh carefully. care deliberate notes limitations serve exists here, Contrary suggestion, Fifth, conclusion. Cabral, 475 715 (CA1 1973); Nixon, 634 306, 308-309 (CA5), 454 828, 120, 70 103 (1981); 1100, 1108, (CA5 1976); McKim, 509 769, 773 1975); Jones Morris, 590 684 (CA7) curiam), 440 u.s. 965, 99 1513, 59 780 (1979); DeTienne, 151, 155 (CA7 1972), 410 911, 93 974, 274 (1973); Merrick, 464 1090 (CA10), 409 1023, 462, 314 Small, 345 1246, 1248-1250 (ED Pa.1972) (holding through immediately charges). Davis, 487 112, 116 1973), 415 981, 1573, 878 (1974). Even cites issued contradictory signals question. Lai Ming Tanu, 589 82, 88-89 1978) (leaving federal transaction); Roberts, 548 665 (CA6), sub nom. Williams 920, 2188, 53 232 (1977) (considering purposes discussing Henry, 615 1223, 1233, open, limiting 1377 1978), mistrial); Lara, 172 60, 63-65, 520 460, 463-465 (1975) purposes). argues reinstitution untoward consequences: discourage improperly prematurely, unwarranted light evidence, dissuade reopening changed circumstances. argument specious, If reopens material Government. sensitively evaluated counted portion infra. supra (assuming calculus violation, one-year shown); codefendants proceedings, complex, stories, needed judge use confidential informants, showed prejudice); eve trial; unexplained, faith; proved third prove prejudice). Whether falls category unclear. leaves statement ante, 10-11, 12, puzzling. constricted view irrelevant violated, continually nine chargeable promptly resolved. little weight CID's reinvestigation insufficient warranted mainly consumed claims. example, babysitter ice pick story Cross-examination reaffirm Tr. 3559-3560, 3567-3572. disagree Moreover obvious "does itself," ibid., directly petition.

Category: 0