Document: 409 U.S. 505 93 S.Ct. 876 35 L.Ed.2d 29 Samuel Ed ROBINSON, Petitioner,v.William S. NEIL, Warden. No. 71-6272. Argued Dec. 6, 1972. Decided Jan. 16, 1973. Rehearing Denied Feb. 26, See 410 959, 1423. Syllabus Waller v. Florida, 397 387, 90 1184, 25 435, which bars on the ground of double jeopardy two prosecutions, state and municipal, based same act or offense, is fully retroactive. Pp. 506—511. 452 F.2d 370, vacated remanded. James D. Robinson, Chattanooga, Tenn., for petitioner. Bart C. Durham, III, Nashville, respondent. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 In 1962 petitioner was tried convicted in Chattanooga municipal court three counts assault battery violation a city ordinance. He fined $50 costs each count. later indicted by grand jury Hamilton County, Tennessee, which, out circumstances giving rise to trial, charged him with offenses intent commit murder law. The pleaded guilty charges received consecutive sentences 10 years five third offense. presently custody respondent warden Tennessee State Penitentiary. 2 1966 unsuccessfully sought habeas corpus relief courts that second convictions violated his federal constitutional guarantee against twice being placed 1967 denied similar request relief. Robinson Henderson, 268 F.Supp. 349 (ED Tenn.1967), aff'd, 391 933 (CA6 1968). 1970 renewed claims relief, basing arguments this Court's intervening decisions Benton Maryland, 395 784, 89 2056, 23 707 (1969), 435 (1970). Holding be accorded retrospective effect, District Court granted 320 894 Tenn.1971). Sixth Circuit reversed (452 370 (1971)) we certiorari decide retroactivity Florida. Neil, 406 916, 92 1800, 32 115 (1972). 3 Fifth Amendment's no person put offense first held binding States supra. Our subsequent decision supra, scope precluded recognition 'dual sovereignty' doctrine respect separate prosecutions. involved theft mural from City Hall St. Petersburg, there violating ordinances destruction property breach peace. Subsequently, he larceny law involving theft. stated: 4 'the Florida were error extent holding that— 5 "even if has been identical court, would not bar prosecution such proper court." at 395, S.Ct., 1189. 6 Prior 1965 Linkletter Walker, 381 618, 85 1731, 14 601, have less doubt concerning holding. For, until time, both common our own recognized general rule effect Court, e.g., Norton Shelby 118 425, 442, 1121, 1125, 30 L.Ed. 178 (1886), subject limited exceptions nature as those stated Chicot County Drainage Baxter Bank, 308 371, 60 317, 84 329 (1940). Linkletter, declaring it charting new (381 U.S., 628 n. 13, 1737), interpretations criminal rights Constitution neither prohibits nor requires effect.' Id., 629, 1737. succeeding cases established set factors determining rules prospective only.* case applied enunciated these held, contrary conclusion retroactively. 7 We do believe readily lends itself analysis Linkletter. Certainly, nothing following indicate all arising under eight Amendments must subjected enunciated. announced an exception announcing exclusionary Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 81 1684, 1081 (1961), given only. other relied upon Circuit, dealt bearing use evidence particular mode trial. Those procedural methods conducting trials, however, encompass found Amendments. Guarantees relate cannot, purposes, lumped conveniently together terms analysis. For purpose various guarantees vary sufficiently among themselves so affect necessity rather than application. 8 indicated, instance, only affecting very integrity factfinding process' effect. 639, 1743. some nonprocedural guarantees, test simply appropriate. Furman Georgia, 408 238, 2726, 33 346 (1972), example, situation presented imposition death penalty constitutionally permissible. Yet, while does process, hesitated apply retrospectively without regard whether meets criteria. E.g., Walker 936, 2845, 753. 9 prohibition likewise susceptible line cases. Although handed down reasoned indicated retroactive examination North Carolina Pearce, 711, 2072, 656 (1969); Ashe Swenson, 436, 437 1, 1189, 1191, 469 These directly control question should but they bear its disposition. significantly different While guarantee, like others, right defendant, practical result prevent trial taking place all, prescribe govern conduct A number prospectively basic fairness earlier directed instead collateral purposes deterrence unlawful police conduct, Waller, ruling squarely prevention trial's even though might conducted scrupulous defendant. 11 suggest distinction draw ironclad one will invariably easy classification category other. element reliance embodied wholly absent related procedure, indeed when contrasted illustrates. 12 mandate tailored deny authority impose punishment unconstitutional, redetermination factual had fact committed. Thus, prejudice resulting entirely because procedures newly defective, attendant difficulties again assembling witnesses whose memories dimmer first, present. That invalid could isolated excised requiring begin entire process anew. 13 application may, hand, form because, analogy, may occurred sentence already served prior commencement prosecution. If serious law, apparently case, defendant unintentionally relatively painless immunity But makes clear analogy between prosecutions permitted Bartkus Illinois, 359 121, 79 676, 684 (1959), never sanctioned analytically sound. Since issue did assume proportions after Maryland Double Jeopardy Clause applicable States, occasion pass issue. cannot said marked departure past Therefore, Waller-type involve over above refusal permit bars, justifiability State's lower supporting dual sovereignty good deal more dubious justification weight intimate view what justifiable Waller. hold, therefore, full refrain outright reversal judgment below, statements counsel oral argument raised actually therefore vacate Appeals remand opportunity present 15 It ordered. 16 Judgment 17 BRENNAN, whom DOUGLAS MARSHALL concur. 18 I otherwise join reverse outright. adhere my that, regardless similarity offenses, Amendment, through Fourteenth prosecution, except most here, 'to grow single act, occurrence, episode, transaction.' 453—454, 1199, (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring); see Grubb Oklahoma, 1017, 450, 34 309 (1972) dissenting); Miller Oregon, 405 1047, 1321, 31 590 Harris Washington, 404 55, 57, 183, 184, 212 (1971) (separate statement Douglas, Brennan, Marshall, JJ.). Under 'same transaction' test, brought * Desist United 394 244, 1030, 22 248 carefully examined decided since guiding criteria

Category: 0