Document: 383 U.S. 116 86 S.Ct. 773 15 L.Ed.2d 627 UNITED STATES, Appellant,v.Clarence EWELL and Ronald K. Dennis. No. 29. Argued Nov. 18, 1965. Decided Feb. 23, 1966. [Syllabus from pages 116-117 intentionally omitted] Ralph S. Spritzer, Washington, D.C., for appellant. David B. Lockton, Indianapolis, Ind., appellee, Clarence Ewell. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Appellees Ewell Dennis were indicted on December 14, 1962, selling narcotics without order form required by 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a) (1964 ed.).1 The indictments, each alleging a single sale, did not name purchasers. After pleas guilty 18 19 they sentenced to minimum terms imprisonment permitted statute, five years Ewell, as second offender, ten years.2 On July 17, 1963, Court Appeals Seventh Circuit, in an unrelated case, held that indictment does allege purchaser is defective may be set aside under 28 2255 ed.). Lauer v. United States, 7 Cir., 320 F.2d 187.3 Ewell's motion November 6, vacate his conviction, Dennis' similar January 28, 1964, granted District 13 April 13, respectively. immediately rearrested new complaints reindicted, March June 15, 1964. These charging same sales alleged original indictments but this time naming purchasers, contained three counts: Count I charged violations 4705(a); II or stamped packages violation 4704(a) ed.);4 III dealing illegally imported 21 174 2 30, respectively, States Southern Indiana motions dismiss against them ground had been denied their Sixth Amendment rights speedy trial, while rejecting other contention also being placed double jeopardy. In its petition rehearing dismissal Government advised court upon plea finding guilty, all counts except would dismissed him, leaving conviction which sentence only offender,5 contrast 10-year previously received 4705(a). request then appealed directly 3731 has limited appeal portion case count indictment, 4704(a). We noted probable jurisdiction. 381 909, 85 1530, 14 432. reverse. 3 cannot agree passage months between arrests hearings later itself demonstrates Amendment's guarantee trial.6 This important safeguard prevent undue oppressive incarceration prior minimize anxiety concern accompanying public accusation limit possibilities long delay will impair ability accused defend himself. However, large measure because many procedural safeguards provided accused, ordinary procedures criminal prosecution are designed move at deliberate pace. A requirement unreasonable speed have deleterious effect both society protect itself. Therefore, consistently view 'The right trial necessarily relative. It consistent with delays depends circumstances. secures defendant. preclude justice.' Beavers Haubert, 198 77, 87, 25 573, 576, 49 L.Ed. 950. 'Whether completing * amounts unconstitutional deprivation must purposeful oppressive,' Pollard 352 354, 361, 77 481, 486, 393. '(T)he essential ingredient orderly expedition mere speed.' Smith 360 1, 10, 79 991, 997, 1041. 4 appellees promptly convicted after 1962 arrested reindicted due course Moreover, it was decision supra, subsequent vacation appellees' convictions precipitated indictments. these circumstances, substantial interval violate provision Constitution. 5 rule when defendant obtains reversal prior, unsatisfied he retried normal events. Ball, 163 662, 671—672, 16 1192, 1195, 41 300; Tateo, 377 463, 465, 473—474, 84 1587, 1593, 12 448. cases, dealt Double Jeopardy Clause, thought wise protects societal interest trying people crime, rather than granting immunization legal error previous enhances probability appellate courts vigilant strike down tainted reversible error. 466, 1589. policies, so carefully preserved Court's interpretation seriously undercut given Speedy Trial Clause below. Indeed, such place premium collateral direct attack greater possibility might attach. 6 themselves concede Ball Tateo ample authority retrial charges 4705, despite contentions.7 But urge us prohibit cases proceeding 4704 4705 allegedly impaired different charge, thereby rendering prejudicial oppressive. note, first, however, brought well within applicable statute limitations, usually considered primary bringing overly stale charges. Surely could claim no automatic if there comparison situation, enhanced themselves, very least put early notice intended prosecute specific now charged. 8 Second, possible prejudice defending insubstantial, speculative premature. They mention evidence actually disappeared lost, witnesses who known disappeared. Although present packages, 4704, purchaser's written form, based involved respect, should recalled problem Government's too, still carries burden proving beyond reasonable doubt. 9 Third, occurred convictions; seeks sustain charges, carry lesser sentences 4705(a), oppress, extend judge, again convicted, clear opportunity take account already spent prison. find culpable governmental conduct inhering facts. 10 apparently reconviction prison law permit served credited imposed reconviction. This, premature concern. yet indictments; reconvicted assumed controlling credit served. However be, matters stand, remaining years, compared two instead every reason expect sentencing judge invalid incarcerations into fashioning convicted.8 11 invoke we think correctly rejected. Fifth provides person shall 'be subject offence twice jeopardy life limb.' That clause, punishment, properly invoked bar unless 'same offence' first trials. identity offenses is, therefore, recurring issue one need face case. Here attempting offense acquittal unreversed another arising out transaction. See Abbate 359 187, 196, 666, 671, 729, separate Brennan. Nor any question here joining more crime. Compare Blockburger 284 299, 52 180, 76 306. Here, charge 4704. If clearly either vacated own motions. where fact manner expand number trials them. not, same, current 4704.9 Reversed remanded. BRENNAN, concurring result. am unable join opinion, read implying approval government most initially statutes Gore 357 386, 78 1280, 1405, over my dissent, constitutionally applied sale. Their successful attacks statutory offenses. can plausible reasons tactic increase pressure plead raising threat cumulative sentences, punish asserting challenge sentences. offered abandon ed.) rehearing, seemed imperiled. tactics kind raise serious questions me. Cf. Green 355 184, 221, 199; 196—201, 671—674, 729 (separate opinion); Van Alstyne, Gideon's Wake: Harsher Penalties 'Successful' Criminal Appellant, 74 Yale L.J. 606 (1965). suffered prejudice. seems do, imply employed. informed argument pending below, three. appear FORTAS, whom DOUGLAS joins, dissenting. 17 erred dismissing indictment. Following liberty reindict retry offense.1 deprived trial. merely identical offense. charged, basis sale 400 milligrams heroin, additional statutes. Under one-count ed.), faced 20 years; 40 years. three-count cumulate impose 50 100 Cumulative holding 1405. cf. Comment, Twice Jeopardy, 75 262, 299—317 following transaction setting vividly criticized attempt penalize appellant retrying him aggravated basis. 199. green premised Clause,2 teaching dimension. cases.3 teaches Government, role prosecutor, attach exercise penalty succeeds, charge. Black, speaking green, said: our judgment incredible dilemma.' U.S., 193, S.Ct., 227.4 appears purpose action discourage right, conferred seek review convictions. According Court, advanced multiplication prosecutor wanted others attacking As Judge it, 'the expressed prospective liberation similarly narcotic felons.'5 242 F.Supp. 451, 456. prosecutor's understandable, law. Due Process boobytrap frighten. answer foregoing after—and entire support 'upon guilty' dismissed. belated offer, conditioned absolve Government. continued insist going unsupportable Even Notice Appeal asserted try 'present indictment.' Not until Solicitor General filed jurisdiction statement suggested taken counts—and suggestion negatively phrased: 'would dismissal' backhanded concession warrants reversing responsibility. stand test lawfulness presents it. rest faulty indicating willingness acquiesce surgery unready initiate. 22 view, reindictment, greatly exceeding threatened penalties, lawful defense. Apart considerations impermissible found technique necessary unlawfully burdening penalizing federal forbidden Clause. affirm prejudice, factors permit, re-indictment limits 'It unlawful sell, barter, exchange, give away drugs pursuance article sold, bartered, exchanged, given, issued blank Secretary delegate.' 'Whoever commits described section imprisoned less and, addition, fined $20,000. For offense, offender $20,000.' 7237(b) circuit since overruled decision. Collins Markley, 346 230 (en banc). purchase, dispense, distribute package package; absence appropriate taxpaid stamps prima facie subsection whose possession found.' 7237(a) 'In prosecutions, enjoy *.' U.S.Const., VI. almost seven ultimately overturned attack; remanded him. Bayless 147 169, incarcerated subsequently invalidated. likewise reject sustained 'to nature cause court, base ruling ground. event, adequate obviously did, came much too late, disposed of. situation distinguished 199, first-degree murder second-degree murder. Upon attempted reprosecute prevented alternative grounds jury returned implied verdict dismissed, defendant's consent murder, returning express Neither sole 4705. presented Ciucci State Illinois, 356 571, 839, 983, Hoag New Jersey, 464, 829, 913. Those whether Fourteenth prevents successive prosecutions alleges general names victims. 448; Note, Jeopardy: Reprosecution Problem, Harv.L.Rev. 1272, 1283—1285 (1964). Green, firstdegree where, former degree. Brennan's discusprinciples 606, 629 (1965); Harv.L.Rev., 1287. Fay Noia, 372 391, 440, 83 822, 849, 837; Draper 487, 774, 899; Lane Brown, 477, 768, 892; Douglas People California, 353, 814, 811; Bennett, 365 708, 81 895, 39; Burns Ohio, 252, 1164, 1209; Griffin 351 12, 585, 891. Wolf, 46 N.J. 301, 216 A.2d 586 (1966); Henderson, 60 Cal.2d 482, 497, 35 Cal.Rptr. 386 P.2d 677, 687 (1963). 187 (C.A. 7th Cir.), obtained failed state furnished information concerning individuals subjected reprosecution multiplecount Subsequently, (C.A.7th Cir.).

Category: 0