Document: 404 U.S. 307 92 S.Ct. 455 30 L.Ed.2d 468 UNITED STATES, Appellant,v.William R. MARION and Samuel C. Cratch. No. 70—19 Argued Nov. 8, 1971. Decided Dec. 20, Syllabus Appellees, claiming that the Government had known of crimes with which they were charged, circumstances crimes, appellees' identities for over three years before indicted, moved to dismiss on ground indictment was returned 'an unreasonably oppressive unjustifiable time after alleged offenses,' delay deprived them rights due process law a speedy trial as secured by Fifth Sixth Amendments. While asserting no specific prejudice, appellees contended required memory many acts conversations occurring several prosecutor's negligence or indifference in investigating case presenting it grand jury. The District Court, hearing, granted motion dismissed 'lack prosecution,' having found defense 'bound have been seriously prejudiced' three-year delay. took direct appeal this postponed consideration question jurisdiction until hearing merits. Held: 1. lack nature confession avoidance constituted bar who not placed jeopardy when Court entered its order dismissal. That therefore directly appealable under former 18 U.S.C. § 3731. P. 311—312. 2. Amendment's guarantee is applicable only person has 'accused' crime, did occur (who previously arrested otherwise charged) indicted. Pp. 313—320. 3. relevant statute limitations provides safeguard against possible prejudice resulting from pre-accusation delay, here indicted within period. 320—323. 4. Though Due Process Clause may provide basis dismissing an if can show at prosecutorial prejudiced right fair trial, claimed proved actual their claims are speculative premature. 325—326. Reversed. Kent Greenawalt, New York City, appellant. Thomas Penfield Jackson, Washington, D.C., appellees. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 This requires us decide whether dismissal federal constitutionally reason period between occurrence criminal filing indictment. 2 On April 21, 1970, two charged 19 counts operating business Allied Enterprises, Inc., engaged selling installing home improvements such intercom sets, fire control devices, burglary detection systems. Allegedly, fraudulently conducted involved misrepresentations, alterations documents, deliberate nonperformance contracts. covered March 15, 1965, February 6, 1967; earliest act occurred September 3, latest January 19, 1966. 3 May 5, filed 'for failure commence prosecution offenses therein afford (them their) Amendments Constitution United States.' No evidence submitted, but itself arguments counsel motion, appears Enterprises subject Federal Trade Commission cease desist 1967, series articles appeared Washington Post October reporting results newspaper's investigation practices employed improvement firms Allied. also contained purported statements then States Attorney Columbia describing his office's these predicting indictments would soon be forthcoming. Although attributed mention specifically, company mentioned course newspaper stories. In summer 1968, request Attorney's office, certain records interview there appellee Marion discussed conduct officer Enterprises. jury impaneled 1969, informed jury's concern finally handed down April. 4 Appellees because offenses.' They argued before, demonstrated. judge prosecution' conclusion remarked since must become aware facts 'is bound least some bringing should brought very early 1968.'1 5 appealed pursuant 3731 (1964 ed., Supp. V).2 We merits case.3 now hold jurisdiction, we reverse judgment 6 * prior recent amendment, [1964 V] authorized any district court sustained 'a bar, defendant put jeopardy.' It plain purview section. rendered judgment. based ruling undue indictment, matter beyond power cure re-indictment permissible ruling. rested grounds nothing do guilt innocence truth allegations was, rather, plea avoidance, is, where does deny he committed crime instead pleads cannot prosecuted extraneous factor, running denial trial. See v. Weller, 401 254, 260, 91 602, 606, 28 26 (1971). constitutional exclusively, neither counsel, Court's oral opinion, nor Rule Criminal Procedure 48(b), dismissal.4 Our hear satisfactorily established. II 7 claim Amendment violated two-month return Instead, approximately end scheme indictment; so substantial inherently prejudicial our view, however, provision application putative way becomes 'accused,' event 1970. 8 '[i]n all prosecutions, accused shall enjoy public . ..' face, protection activated begun extends those persons prosecution. These provisions seem yet accused, require discover, investigate, accuse particular time. amendment appear will move dispatch appropriate assure him proper disposition charges him. '(T)he essential ingredient orderly expedition mere speed.' Smith States, 360 1, 10, 79 991, 997, 1041 (1959). 9 attention called surrounding adoption indicating mean what say,5 more than marginal support proposition that, Amendment, prevailing rule prosecutions permitted long charge.6 framers could hardly selected less language intended protect opinions intimate thesis,7 courts appeals considered terms never reversed conviction solely pre-indictment involved.8 10 Legislative efforts implement state plainly reveal view guarantees crime. pointed out '(a)t common law, absence special statutes limitations, find operate discharge offense nolle prosequi government, indict.' Cadarr, 197 475, 478, 25 487, 488, 49 L.Ed. 842 (1905). Since 'doubtless true cases government abused kept hanging heads citizens, unreasonable periods, hardship,' noted '(w)ith preventing wrong citizen (and) aid provisions, national state, secure trial' passed limiting charge indictment.9 Characteristically, referred triggered accused.10 vary greatly substance, structure interpretation, denominator '(i)n (does) arise arrest, even though prosecuting authorities knowledge this.' Note, Right Speedy Trial, 57 Col.L.Rev. 846, 848 (1957). 11 general applicability enacted Congress enforce force authorizes information, complaint '(i)f unnecessary information held answer court, clearly limited post-arrest situations.11 12 Appellees' position therefore, odds longstanding legislative judicial constructions both constitutions. III 13 apparent little emerges purposes provision, termed important prevent incarceration minimize anxiety accompanying accusation limit possibilities impair ability defend himself.' Ewell, 383 116, 120, 86 773, 776, 15 627 (1966); see Klopfer North Carolina, 386 213, 221—226, 87 988, 992—995, (1967); Dickey Florida, 398 30, 37—38, 90 1564, 1568—1569, (1970). Inordinate defendant's present effective defense. But major evils protected exist quite apart accused's To legally arrest detain, assert probable cause believe arrestee Arrest interfere liberty, free bail not, disrupt employment, drain financial resources, curtail associations, obloquy, create him, family friends. considerations underpinnings decision supra; Hooey, 393 374, 377—378, 89 575, 576—577, 21 607 (1969). So viewed, readily understandable either formal else restraints imposed holding engage protections Amendment. 14 Invocation thus need await other charge.12 decline extend reach arrest. Until occurs, suffers liberty accusation: situation compare answer. Passage time, memories, lost, deprive witnesses, himself.13 possibility sufficient wrench context. Possible inherent however short; weaken Government's case. provided mechanisms guard distinguished passage charge. As said supra, U.S., 122, S.Ct., 777, 'the primary overly stale charges.' Such represent assessments relative interests State administering receiving justice; 'are made repose society (during limitation) lost means defence.' Public Schools Walker, Wall. 282, 288, 576 (1870). predictability specifying irrebuttable presumption prejudiced.14 observed Toussie 397 112, 114—115, 858, 860, 156 (1970): 16 'The purpose exposure fixed following legislature decided punish sanctions. limitation designed individuals themselves basic obscured danger official punishment far-distant past. salutary effect encouraging enforcement officials promptly investigate suspected activity.' 17 There press into service delays already perform function. rely potential Part IV, infra, perhaps go further dispose case, first designating limitations.15 Nevertheless, likely consequence defense, note fully define respect events Thus, concedes shown caused intentional device gain tactical advantage accused.16 Cf. Brady Maryland, 373 83, 83 1194, 215 (1963); Napue Illinois, 264, 1173, 1217 However, now, determine prosecution.17 Actual result shortest most necessary delay; one suggests every delay-caused detriment abort prosecution.18 accommodate sound administration justice necessarily involve delicate each unwise juncture attempt forecast cases. IV us, arrested, subjected restraint event, transformed defendants 20 38-month date here. course, able pending June Nor adequately demonstrated Clause. proved, showing intentionally delayed harass them. real extended delay: memories dim, witnesses inaccessible, lost. light enough demonstrate receive justify Events 22 DOUGLAS, whom BRENNAN MARSHALL join, concurring result. 23 I assume returned, impaired dismissed. disagree apply stage 24 From acting through sold installed intercom, control, burglar devices metropolitan area. Their endeavors met spate lawsuits seeking recovery consumer fraud and, brief career ended cease-and-desist Commission. notoriety continued surround activities appearing being Attorney. 9, Sometime 1968 Attorney, mail fraud, wire transportation falsely securities interstate commerce 'to (satisfy the) sought excuse alleging office understaffed given priority types crimes. motion1 appealed. V). majority says 'that Ante, 320. 27 sure, states trial.' words accused,' understand setting, standing complain information. speedily post-indictment delays. Much history pre-prosecution answers proposition. First, British historically consider condition issuance 29 Lord Mansfield Rex Robinson, Black.W. 541, 542, 96 Eng.Rep. 313 (K.B.1765), limitations: '(I)f delayed, reasonably accounted for.' Regina Hext, Jurist 339 (Q.B.1840), refused whole term assault place. Accord: Marshall, East, 322, 104 394 (K.B.1811). Baron Alderson Robins, Cox's C.C. 114 (Somerset Winter Assizes 1844), two-year making bestiality: 31 'It monstrous man lapse How account far back? If you next day, enabled bring forward servants say about time; preferred year more, how clear himself? man's life safe permitted. unjust 32 Second, basically, 18th century commenced completely different familiar today. By England American colonies, ordinary private prosecutor, name King. victim someone interested came prosecute, retained own usual civil proceeding. G. Dession, Law, Administration Order 356 (1948). Procedurally, lawsuit, thereafter nisi similar procedure calling why imprisoned. English Framers familiar, conceived Thus setting individual proceeding indictment.2 33 characterized 'as fundamental Amendment,' 223, 993, protects demands justice: prevention trial; reduction accusation; himself. People Prosser, 309 N.Y. 353, 356, 130 N.E.2d 891, 894 (1955). serves broader interests: 34 Trial societal interests, well accused. concerned cases, restrain guilty deter contemplating it. Just himself, reduce capacity prove Ponzi Fessenden, 258 42 309, 312, 66 (1922). Moreover, while awaiting large fugitive commit acts. And greater commission offender, deterrent value conviction.' 42, 1571, (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring). 35 At values served unique 43 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 722, 725—726 (1968); 77 Yale L.J. 767, 780—783 Comment, Ariz.L.Rev. 770, 774 776 Undue offensive attendant weigh heavily upon formally for, exoneration peers vague lurking distant future. Indeed, underlying denied damned clandestine innuendo chance himself law. Those tried lose jobs positions responsibility, outcasts communities. 36 impairment oneself acute stage. loss alibi destruction material evidence, blurring memories. devote powers recall occurrences. When accusation, proceed methodically build prospective proceeds his.3 37 duty places expeditiously meaning commence. '(t)he relative. consistent depends circumstances.' Beavers Haubert, 198 77, 87, 573, 576, 950 precisely draw line condone illegitimate pre- stage.4 38 decisions adopted majority's (Sixth) (does extend) arrest.' 321. Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 444, 1602, 1612, 694 (1966), police advise preindictment taken custody freedom action significant way.' like one, dealt enumerated entitled. 'arrest' 'indictment' entitled protections. looked involved. applied 'arrest,' examination suspect bed boarding house, presence officers 'in custody.' Orozco Texas, 324, 327, 1095, 1097, 311. follow same approach unexplained inexcusable 39 similarly demonstrates wisdom avoiding today's mechanical guarantees. unrelated charge, petitioner identified witness robbery. Petitioner remained custody, seek prosecute detainer warrant lodged An December 13, 1968. place months seven 40 Brennan questions raised case: 41 'When governmental reasonable? Clearly, use harm 'purposeful oppressive,' unjustifiable. unnecessary, negligent origin. A ensure virtually damaging failure; cause, interest unaffected misuse officials. crucial determining legitimacy might avoided—whether unnecessary. necessity consider, hand, intrinsic importance other, length speedy-trial safeguard. For trivial objective, almost avoided. Similarly, lengthy realizing suspect.' 51—52, 1575. elapsed justifications offered 'not sufficiently staffed expeditiously' desirable5 embraces allegedly fraudulent telephone conversation 16, 1965. argue great likelihood recollection blurred erased frailties human memory. simpler think precedent cited know experience often vast aspects, victims widely scattered hard locate, reconstruction total plan takes days, giving extraordinary advantages organized others farflung complicated network illegal activities. kind goes edge bare bones record hesitate violated. Unless remand agree forward. Hence concur App. 39. court's consisted statement: matters complained 1965 1967 late 1967. justified research delving various transactions, discovered handled much, much sooner, certainly probably during counts, carries ten-year sentence, separate, distinct transaction consecutive sentences, outrageous believed, remember, up one's recollection, produce views grant dismiss.' Ibid. Appeals Act, V), appeal, part: 'An behalf Supreme instances: 'From sustaining Omnibus Crime Control Act 14(a), 84 Stat. 1890, amended read pertinent part follows: 'In lie decision, judgment, except double clause prohibits prosecution.' terminated appellate judgments Pending affected subsection (b) provides: amendments section section.' 1970 2, 1971; 934, 921, 214 48(b) that: 'If complaint.' doubtful applies n. 11, infra. sparse unilluminating issue us. F. Heller, 32, (1951); Rutland, Birth Bill Rights, 1776 1791, p. 202 (1955); I. Brant, Rights 223 (1965); Dumbauld, Precedents J.Pub.L. 323, 335 (1958); Stan.L.Rev. 476, 484 (1968). single antedates (K.B. 1765), 19th East (K.B.1811); (Q.B.1840); 1844) enacting fail establish definite Founders constitutionalize, argument concerning dispositive, persuasive. Brief 18. points Habeas Corpus 1679, Car. 'more Relief Persons imprisoned supposed Matters' jailed felonies treason discharged bail. allude Most ratified Petition Provoo, F.R.D. 183, (D.C.Md.), aff'd sub nom. 350 857, 76 101, 100 761 (1955), constitutions modeled Act. Article Virginia Declaration model Madison used 202, 'criminal prosecutions' hath demand accusation.' generally 23. Insofar meager probative all, seems imply without interpreted small number See, e.g., (1970); (1969); Pollard 352 354, 481, (1957); 6; recognized initiated sole Feinberg, F.2d 60, 65 (CA2 1967); Carlo 283 841, 846 (CA2), cert. denied, 366 944, 81 1672, 855 (1961); Pitts 395 182, 185 (CA4 1968); Durham, 413 1003, 1004 (CA5 1969); Kroll 433 1282, 1286 1970), 402 1618, 112 (1971); Grayson, 416 1073, 1076 1077 Wilson, 342 782, 783 (CA5), 382 119, 98 Donnell 229 560, 567 1956); Harlow 301 361, 371 814, 25, 56 (1962); Bruce 351 318, 320 1965), 1370, 441 Hoopengarner 270 465, 469 (CA6 1959); Harris, 412 471, 473 Lothridge 919, 922 1971); Parker 252 680, 681 (CA6), cert, 964, 78 1071 Edmaiston Neil, 452 494 Panczko, 367 737, 738—739 (CA7 1966); Terlikowski 379 501, 504 (CA8), 389 1008, 88 569, 604 Foley 290 562, 565 (CA8 1961); Benson 579 (CA9 Venus 287 304, 1960), rev'd per curiam grounds, 368 345, 82 384, 341 D'Aquino 192 338, 1951), 343 935, 72 772, 1343 (1952); Reed, 340 (CA10 1969), Sartain 954, 982, 137 Nickens 116 U.S.App.D.C. 340, 323 808, 810 (1963), 905, 85 198, 178 (1964). Some stated dismissal, seemed treat primarily (although occasionally mentioned) prejudice: Schlinsky 735, 737 (CA1 Fleming 378 502, Capaldo, 821, 823 1968), 989, 1476, 764 Simmons, 338 804, 806 1964), 380 983, 1352, 276 Holiday, 319 775, 1963); Hammond, 688, 689 Dickerson, 347 783, 784 1965); Rivera, 346 942, 943 Sanchez, 361 824, 825 Harbin, 377 78, 79, 80 Lee, 910, 912—913 396 1022, 595, 515 Napue, 107, 114—115 1024, 634, 568 Lucas 363 500, 502 Sanchez 225, 228 (CA9), 856, 109, 94 Acree 418 427, 430 1969). 183 (Md.), sometimes explicitly F.R.D., 202. Taylor 99 238 259 (1956), vacated six-year (housebreaking) 1/2 prison another substantially housebreaking stated: 'We itself, governed limitations. combination factors set forth above (post-indictment prejudice) motivates decision.' id., 186, F.2d, 262. instances held, 'delay' computed considers defendants' actions criminal, excessive Parrott, 248 F.Supp. 196 (DC Wahrer, 585 (Alaska 1970); Burke, 224 1963). Circuit narcotics relies secret informers (frequently) transactions. take rigid stance delays, Appeals' supervisory Ross 121 233, 238, 349 210, Bey 337, 467 Powell 122 229, 231, 705, 707 Tynan 126 206, 208, 376 761, 763 (1967) (explicitly Ross). Cadarr 939 Code Congress, 1342. 'charged bail,' specified free. remains code 102, 605, then, purport behind commitment, Ill.Rev.Stat., c. 38, 103—5(a) Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 781 (1964); Cal.Pen.Code 1382 Va.Code Ann. 19.1—191 (1960); Nev.Rev.Stat. 178.556 (1967). comprehensive list Bar Association Project Standards Justice, 14—15 (Approved Draft 1968). Administrative Board Judicial Conference recently promulgated rules detention cover 'held custody' begin computation periods 29.1, Law Journal, 1971, col. 6. 476 Pre-Arrest Delay: Evolving Standards, 722 Constitutional Limits Delay, 51 Iowa L.Rev. 670 Lagging Va.L.Rev. 1587 Overdue—Speedy Potential Defendant, 95 (1952). Second en banc ex rel. Frizer McMann, 437 1312 1971), Appendix, U.S.C.A. (May 1971 Supp.), 'all jail 'defendants' cases.' ready six summons, detention, (other sealed indictment), whichever earliest.' Trials Rules Regarding Prompt Disposition Cases, 71 ColL.Rev. 1059 S. 895, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., bill '(t)o give sixth 'within sixty days summons issued, filed, filing.' 3161(b)(1). U.S.App.D.C., 339, 809; Hoffa, 205 710, 720—721 (SD Fla. 1962). Relating ABA defined beginning continuously recognizance arising episode, answer.' 2.2(a). Under contemplated measured statutory excluding justifiable delays; allege 2.1, ibid. Extending procedural problems: '(W)hile counted inaction preceding recognize commencing charging unfortunate consequences operation system. Allowing inquiry prosecutor raise difficult problems proof. said, hearings proceeded diligently otherwise.' (United Port, Crim. 33162, (ND Cal., 1952). Quoted 95, 101—102, 34.)' Commentary 2.2(a), indicated liberally favor repose. Habig, 390 222, 227, 926, 929, 1055 policies ways similar. 'represent policy privilege litigate,' Chase Securities Corp. Donaldson, 325 314, 1137, 1142, 1628 (1945), rationale encourage promptness actions, parties suffer death disappearance memory.' Missouri, Kansas & Texas Co. Harriman, 227 657, 672, 397, 401, 690 (1913). founded mankind claims, valid, usually allowed remain neglected,' Riddlesbarger Hartford Insurance Co., 386, 390, 257 (1869), 'promote surprises revival slumber faded, disappeared,' Railroad Telegraphers Railway Express Agency, 321 342, 348—349, 64 582, 586, 788 (1944), fairness .. (C)ourts ought relieved burden trying plaintiff slept rights.' Burnett Central 424, 428, 1050, 1054, 941 (1965). area, balance equities involving tardy assertion valid rights: theory just adversary notice comes prevail them.' 349, 586. 'except expressly prosecuted, tried, punished offense, capital, unless instituted five committed.' 3282. 26—27. question. 580; 913; 80; Hoffa 385 293, 310, 408, 417, 374 (1966): 'There arrested. guess peril precise moment suspect, risking violation Fourth too soon, wait long. call halt minimum quantum fall short amount said: J. Stephen, History 493—496 (1883): England, know, colonies alone, offences left entirely persons, legal belong persons.' Id., 493. annotated version inception evolution system, M. Schwartz, Cases Materials Professional Responsibility 2—3 (Nat. Council Legal Clinics 1961). Judge Wright 343, 813 (1963): 'Indeed, disadvantage purposefully delayed. With innocent fix happenings day Memory grows dim Witnesses disappear. make If, hands, shifts lags. system tactic available prosecutors.' '(A) preprosecution physical unavailability remember preprosecution-delay post-indictment-delay typical unaware fact eventually measures preserve witnesses. state's collect document investigation, thereby preserving firepower eventual causal factor Many reluctance terminate undercover investigation. obtained agent complaint, identity exposed effectiveness destroyed. Consequently, arresting complete still obtaining individuals. situation, choice advantage. arguably vis-a -vis claim, arises avoidable law-enforcement authorities.' 489. Assistant General didn't help' retreated assertion.

Category: 0