Document: 420 U.S. 358 95 S.Ct. 1006 43 L.Ed.2d 250 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Ronald S. JENKINS. No. 73—1513. Argued Dec. 9, 1974. Decided Feb. 25, 1975. Syllobus After respondent was ordered to report for induction, his local draft board refused postpone induction allow him claim a conscientious objector classification, and he subsequently indicted refusing failing induction. Following bench trial the District Court 'dismissed' indictment 'discharged' respondent, holding that, although under Ehlert v. United States, 402 99, 91 1319, 28 625, not required entertain claims arising between notice of scheduled date, nevertheless, since failed at time when had yet been decided prevailing law Circuit reopen registrant's classification if views ripened only after notified entitled postponement until considered claim, that it would be unfair apply respondent. The Appeals dismissed Government's appeal 18 U.S.C. § 3731 on ground barred by Double Jeopardy Clause, concluding characterized its action as dismissal indictment, in effect acquitted, relied upon facts developed concluded 'that statute should applied (respondent) matter fact.' Held: Although is clear whether or Court's judgment discharging resolution factual issues against Government, suffices double jeopardy purposes, therefore determining appealability 3731, further proceedings some sort, devoted resolving going elements offense charged resulting supplemental findings, have reversal remand. trial, which could resulted conviction, has long terminated respondent's favor, subject any proceedings, even were receive no additional evidence, violate Clause. Pp. 365-370. 490 F.2d 868, affirmed. Andrew L. Frey, Washington, D.C., petitioner. James Carroll, New York City, Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 Respondent Jenkins with violating 12(a) Military Selective Service Act, 62 Stat. 622, amended, 50 U.S.C.App. 462(a), 'knowingly submit into armed forces States.' App. 3. 349 F.Supp. 1068, 1073 (EDNY 1972). Government sought this ruling pursuant 3731,1 but Second 'for lack jurisdiction clause prohibits prosecution.' 880 (1973). We granted certiorari case States Wilson, 332, 1013, 232 (1975), also today, consider application Clause Fifth Amendment appeals criminal cases. 417 908, 94 2603, 41 211 (1974). 2 * Respondent, who first registered 1966, classified 1—A November 18, 1970. He found physically fit February 4, 1971, sent an Order Report Induction 24, 1971. consulting attorney counselor, wrote requested Form 150 classification. Having received response from 23, day before went person request 150. did secure desired form, officials directed headquarters complete form. indicted. 3 arraigned January 13, 1972, pleaded guilty. parties file all pretrial motions within 45 days, filed period. called continued several occasions. During period motion acquittal based, part, following ground: 4 'The failure order pending determination defendant's arbitrary contrary rendered invalid. Gearey, 368 144 (2nd Cir. 1966).' 4. 5 In Gearey interpreted controlling regulation2 require At remained Circuit. Two months later, however, rejected decision affirming another 625 (1971). 6 When proceeded waived jury, tried court. close court reserved give opportunity proposed findings. does appear record either party find specially, Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 23(c), written findings fact conclusions law, discharged. acknowledged ordered, F.Supp., 1070, date. Nevertheless, represented claim. reasoned respondent: 7 'This cannot permit prosecution defendant these circumstances without seriously eroding fundamental basic equitable principles law.' 1073.3 8 timely appeal4 argued incorrectly retroactive.5 Since held ago bring absent express enabling statute, united Sanges, 310, 12 609, 36 L.Ed. 445 (1892), petitioner's authorized 3731. 9 contended, dispute, intention Congress amending 1971 extend right fullest extent consonant Amendment.6 Judge Friendly, writing Appeals, carefully reviewed evolution draftsmen 'intended import Constitution common protections much they described Blackstone.' F.2d, 873. While available evidence equivocal 'the crown's inability merits' incorporated common-law concept jeopardy, majority view decisions resolved such ambiguity adversely Government. Id., 874, citing Ball, 163 662, 16 1192, 300 (1896); Kepner 195 100, 24 797, 49 114 (1904); Fong Foo 369 141, 82 671, 629 (1962); Sisson, 399 267, 90 2117, 26 608 (1970). acquitted 878. 10 Lumbard dissented two grounds. First, permissible properly rather than acquittal. 'essentially legal construing based,' id., 882, really adjudication merits sense rested brought out trial. Second, acquit stand absolute barrier Government; there societal interest weighed decision.7 II 11 prohibit providing retrial event successful appeal. U.S., 344—345, 352—353, S.Ct., 1022—1023, 1026—1027. principle situation where jury returns verdict guilt thereafter enters acquittal, permitted. conclusion appellate improper second trial; error can corrected remand entry verdict. To sure, prefer permitted conviction entered, one designed protect. nowhere distinguishes trials, given expression through cases judge. protection most often articulated context trials,8 recent authorize whenever consistent combined increasing numbers9 makes area important though unilluminated prior 13 A general finding judge may analogized 'guilty' returned jury. Mulloney 79 566, 584 (CA1 1935), cert. denied, 296 658, 56 383, 80 468 (1936). distinction jury's guilty court's questions easily perceived. both functions are judge, 'not guilty' rest favor question favorably him. If prepares special fact, because them10 elected make them sua sponte,11 possible sifting those determine attributable erroneous conception whereas necessary support correct standard. argues essentially what happened case. Brief 14. 14 less certain basis ruled. It is, But neither us Court, expressly impliedly establish formulation applicable law. certainly contains guilt, specific many component offense, statutory element 'knowledge.' light judge's discussion issue opinion, omission reflected requisite intent beyond reasonable doubt. See n. 3, supra. 15 On record, favorable retroactivity tendered justify instructions reinstate guilt: finding, form substance, reinstate. hold today supra, bar errors result correction will simply reinstatement guilt. uncertainty here, Wilson govern suggests theories, each go our permitting 'whether new must follow always relevant consideration,' more; situation.12 least setting, contends 'trial' viewed quite broadly. If, ruled theory, ought able appeal; successful, subsequent including, presumably, reopening proceeding admission merely 'continuation trial.'13 Tr. Oral Arg. 16. This theory remanding more explicit 17 unable accept contentions. Both aspect 'continuing jeopardy' Holmes dissenting 134—137, 806 807, never adopted Because recently specified limited circumstances, holdings come appealed conviction. See, e.g., Green 355 184, 78 221, 199 (1957); Trono 521, 121, 292 (1905); 671—672, 1195. few reached process initiated supra; (1962). cases, defendants adjudged guilty, usually full retrial, followed. Here defendant, we say assurance was, not, enough purposes charged, Even still favor. stage Clause: underlying idea, deeply ingrained Anglo-American system jurisprudence, State resources power allowed repeated attempts convict individual alleged ofense, thereby subjecting embarrassment, expense ordeal compelling live continuing state anxiety insecurity . ..' 187, 223. Affirmed. 19 DOUGLAS, whom BRENNAN joins, concurring judgment. 20 I bars 629. Accordingly, concur affirmance below. Title provides, part: 'In shall lie decision, judgment, district dismissing information counts, except prosecution. taken thirty days diligently prosecuted. provisions section liberally construed effectuate purposes.' 32 CFR 1625.2 (1965): anew registrant (a) registrant, government agent, dependent current deferment involving occupational deferment, accompanied presenting classified, which, true, change classification; (b) own based provided, event, reopened mailed (SSS 252) Civilian Work Statement Employer 153) unless specifically finds status over control.' regulation 1955, Fed.Reg. 737, amended events leading up indictment. 1973, 38 731. believed convicted knowingly acted belief board's illegal Gearey. There direct witness counselor contacted receiving testified sincerity apparently touched issue. 70—73. counselor's testimony inadmissible. time, regarded 'strictly law,' 73, changed mind deliberation, prerogative: 'Trials judgments consideration reversed remarks made tentative theories advanced course trial.' Wain, 162 60, 65 (CA2), 332 764, 68 69, 92 (1947). 30 brief seven later. indicated prosecute diligently, so requested. 869 2. similarly argument By brief, whose refusal occurred while Mercado, 478 1108 observed, however: 'We recognize rule night harsh reasonably good faith knowledge boards circuit belated objection perhaps room flexibility enforcement avoid injustice particular 1111. H.R.Conf.Rep. 91—1768, p. 21 Cf. S.Rep.No.91—1296 mistrial "public's fair trials end just judgments" weighed. Illinois Somerville, 410 458, 470, 93 1066, 1073, 35 425 That interest, felt, served clearly free interpretation 884. disagree analysis think critical importance erminate Somerville line here. (1904). 1974 Annual Director, Administrative Office Courts IX—97, Trials Completed Fiscal Years 1962 Through 1974: Criminal ____________ Non- year Total Jury ......................... 3,788 1,090 2,698 1963 3,865 1,159 2,706 1964 .............................3,924 1,076 2,848 1965 ............................ 3,872 1,143 2,729 1966 .............................4,410 1,239 3,171 1967 .............................4,405 1,345 3,060 1968..............................5,533 1,800 3,733 1969 .............................5,563 1,883 3,680 1970 .............................6,583 2,357 4,226 .............................7,456 2,923 4,533 1972 .............................7,818 2,968 4,850 1973 .............................8,571 2,927 5,644 .............................7,600 2,753 4,847 Federal Rule 23(c): 'Trial Without Jury. addition specially. memorandum filed, sufficient therein.' Sullivan 348 170, 174, 75 182, 185, 99 210 (1954). 5, broader preserve it. disposition principal argument, proceed alternative ground. premise position factifinder discharged unlike discharge returning terminates 191, 225, theoretically remains reconvene case, take left off, resume duties factfinder. Preliminarily, observed availability means assured, illustrates: reportedly resigned. U.S.L.W,. 2268

Category: 0