Document: 466 U.S. 294 104 S.Ct. 1805 80 L.Ed.2d 311 JUSTICES OF BOSTON MUNICIPAL COURT, Petitioners,v.Michael LYDON. No. 82-1479. Argued Dec. 6, 1983. Decided April 18, 1984. Syllabus Under Massachusetts law, a defendant charged with certain minor crimes in Boston Municipal Court may elect to have bench trial or jury trial. If he chooses and is convicted, has the normal appellate process open him, but if dissatisfied results, an absolute right de novo before need not allege error at obtain review. However, there no review of conviction. Respondent elected undergo first-tier on charge knowing possession implements designed for breaking into automobile steal property. He was convicted sentenced jail term, judge having rejected his claim that prosecution had introduced evidence intent steal. then requested released personal recognizance pending retrial. Before commenced, respondent moved dismiss ground been presented thus retrial barred under Burks v. United States, 437 1, 98 2141, 57 which held Double Jeopardy Clause bars second when reviewing court reverses conviction first legally insufficient. The motion denied, sought relief Supreme Judicial Court, ultimately inapplicable because ruled insufficient respondent's also without determination as sufficiency would violate Clause. habeas corpus Federal District "in custody" purposes 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) exhausted state remedies. Finding merits, concluded that, Burks, foreclosed against insufficient, support Appeals affirmed. Held: 1. jurisdiction entertain action. Pp. 300-303. (a) For federal statutes, "custody" even though vacated applied recognizance. use restricted situations applicant actual physical custody. statute subjected him restraints shared by public generally, including obligations appear depart leave. Cf. Hensley 411 345, 93 1571, 36 294. 300-302. (b) remedies respect double jeopardy claim. claim, fact might be acquitted did alter taken should tried again far could courts. A requirement run entire gamut procedures, retrial, prior consideration court, require sacrifice protection being twice put same offense. 302-303. 2. Respondent's any judicial will 304-313. Ludwig Massachusetts, 427 618, 96 2781, 49 732—upholding two-tier system courts differed from present one requiring participate proceedings allowing choose instance—was disturbed decision supra, dispositive issue here. 304-306. In this case, State attempting, contrary guarantees embodied Clause, impose multiple punishments single offense convict after acquittal. acquitted; simply maintains ought been. 306-308. (c) concept "continuing jeopardy" implicit general rule does bar reversal Acquittal terminates initial jeopardy, recognizes likewise jeopardy. failed identify stage can terminated 308-310. (d) constitute governmental oppression sort intended protect, tier claims insufficiency evidence. defendant's alleging ameliorates danger affording opportunity supply it muster proceeding. every incentive forward its strongest case trial, acquittal preclude reprosecution defendant. There nothing stop choosing sole purpose getting preview State's enable prepare better two-tiered system, unlike more conventional gives two opportunities facts. obtains usual 310-312. 698 F.2d 1 (CA1 1982), reversed. Barbara A.H. Smith, Boston, Mass., petitioners. David Rossman, respondent; Eva Nilsen, brief. Eric Blumenson, amici A.C.L.U. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. We granted certiorari, 463 ----, 103 3535, 77 1386 (1983), First Circuit affirming issuance writ corpus. agreed Lydon, pursuant Massachusetts' "twotier" trying crimes, placed crime, determined critical element adduced reverse. 2 * either Mass.Gen.Laws Ann., ch. 218, §§ 26, 26A (West Supp.1983-1984). while results elects course, jury.1 26 27A. who chosen On other hand, rely upon conviction; only recourse novo. 3 Michael Lydon arrested Boston. "adapted forcing depository [an automobile] order therefrom, such money property found therein" "to employ them therefor." Record, Complaint. convicted. Lydon's car actions were consistent activities covered complaint. years jail. 4 session Pending contended therefore principles (1978), 5 After justice Massachusetts. See 211, 1958). issued stay reported questions full bench: 6 "1. Is denial go through waiving rights, warrant conviction? 7 "2. Assuming instance considered level, assuming, denied appropriate request ruling insufficient?" 8 report finding evidence, although "of view sufficient guilty findings." Reservation Report, 3. noted conceded guilt charges set forth Ibid. 9 initially sit determining conclusion reached "was made reporting clearly framed adjudication rights parties case." Commonwealth, 381 Mass. 356, 359, n. 409 N.E.2d 745, 748, cert. 449 1065, 101 792, 66 609 (1980). argument merit. Because indeed ever occasion do so inapplicable. observed, address question whether reconsideration "[a] merely avenue based voluntarily novo." 367, N.E.2d, 752. As question, valid dealt novo, acknowledged "rendered largely academic" answer since second-tier necessarily rejected. Id., 366, 10 filed petition States addressing jurisdiction, remedy available short submitting 536 F.Supp. 647 (1982). viewed "bestow[ing] constitutional defendants retried rests evidence," F.Supp., 651, thought holding id., 652. transcript ordered issue. appeal, divided affirmed all respects. II A. 11 Commonwealth's contention lacked action 2241(c), "writ shall extend prisoner unless . (3) custody violation Constitution laws treaties States." Similarly, 2254(a) states persons judgment court." Petitioners argue recognizance, "custody." 12 Our cases make clear "the actual, custody." Jones Cunningham, 371 236, 239, 83 373, 375, 285 (1963). (1973), we petitioner enlarged own execution sentence within meaning 2241(c)(3) 2254(a). Hensley's release subject conditions waive extradition apprehended outside State, revoke returned confinement post bail. Although freedom are identical those imposed Hensley, think they sufficiently different result. 13 subjects "restraints generally." U.S., 351, S.Ct., 1575. obligation scheduled day "at subsequent time continued until final sentence." 278, 18 1981). Failure "without excuse" constitutes criminal Ch. 276, 82A. Also, fails session, required, further serve 2-year originally imposed. 24. Finally, requires "not leave, meantime keep peace good behavior." 18. Consequently, believe correctly 14 contend person statutes "ope[n] door trial." Brief addressed Hensley: 15 "Finally, emphasize our doors district petitions bail their concerned here apparently aside. Where must still requirements exhaustion doctrine seeks Nothing today's alters application defendant." 353, 1575.2 B 16 convinced judicially sustain conviction.3 This precise That definitively 17 mind unique nature right. Abney 431 97 2034, 52 651 (1977), indictment grounds 1291. special recognition cannot fully vindicated appeal following judgment, part protects "against offense." 661, 2041 (emphasis original). "protects interests wholly unrelated propriety conviction," ibid., protections Clause.4 view, therefore, courts, precondition Court's satisfied. conclude below, however, erred sustaining claim: trial.5 III 19 732 (1976), upheld cases. differs significance Prior Reorganization Act 1978, instance; required proceedings. above, avoid altogether proceed directly upholding stated: 20 "The presents accused pardoned; nor doubt precludes reprosecution. Instead, appears appellant once retry informs 'appeal' secure 21 "Appellant's substance. new alone. position than successfully appeals basis record gains remand these circumstances, long reprosecute. Ball, 163 662 [16 1192, 41 L.Ed. 300] (1896). difference between resulting automatically 'reversal' assignment prohibits acquittal." 631-632, 2788. 22 Ludwig, later (1978). petitioner's aside verdict. remanded directed verdict entered. reversed, stating: 23 "In short, error, distinguished evidentiary insufficiency, effect government prove case. such, implies innocence 24 said overturned due failure proof complain prejudice, given fair offer whatever assemble. Moreover, means government's lacking submitted jury. Since afford finality jury's acquittal—no matter how erroneous decision—it difficult conceive society greater interest retrying when, review, decided law properly guilty." 15-16, 2149-2150. (footnote omitted) 25 summarized "that insufficient." 2150. argues, held, statement appeals, combined setting mandates guilt. unpersuaded. 27 Fifth Amendment provides "be offence life limb." Benton Maryland, 395 784, 89 2056, 707 (1969), guarantee applicable Fourteenth Amendment. recognized three separate Clause: It acquittal, conviction, Illinois Vitale, 447 410, 415, 100 2260, 2264, 65 228 (1980).6 primary goal barring prevent mounting successive prosecutions thereby wearing down explained Green 355 184, 187-188, 78 221, 223, 199 (1957): 29 underlying idea, deeply ingrained least Anglo-American jurisprudence, resources power allowed repeated attempts individual alleged offense, subjecting embarrassment, expense ordeal compelling live continuing anxiety insecurity, well enhancing possibility innocent 30 foreclosing Wilson, 420 332, 343, 95 1013, 1021, 43 232 (1975). 31 Commonwealth attempting Nor making another attempt satisfied abided course. conceptual difficulty His offend fundamental reviewed, otherwise, putting [a defendant] jeopardy." 662, 671, 1195, 300 (1896); Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 564, 571, 1349, 1354, 51 642 (1977). cases, take us like. 32 trials. whose appeal. supra. justification Tateo, 377 463, 466, 84 1587, 1589, 448 (1964), follows: 33 "While theories advanced permissibility importance abstractions employed explain Ball principle implications sound administration justice. Corresponding societal punishing obtained high price pay immunity punishment defect reversible leading conviction." 34 Price Georgia, 398 323, 329, 90 1757, 1761, (1970), permitting Breed Jones, 421 519, 534, 1779, 1788, 44 346 "has where course." 326, 1759. Interests supporting involve fairness society, lack finality, limited waiver. 4, 4. Acquittals, convictions, terminate "express implied lesser included 1761. unreversed served 35 assume, deciding, attached swearing witness now terminated. affirmative Unlike rest court's faced bench-trial judge, assertion, met burden proof. "represents resolution, correct not, some factual elements charged." (Emphasis added.) legal consequences dissent described hearing technically [the 'tried again,' proceeding regarded enlarged, fact-sensitive single, continuous course during which, sooner later, receives more—rather less—of normally extended nation." F.2d, (Campbell, J., dissenting). 37 involved particular event—an Concededly, event occurred here; insists entitled control very issue, reach far. reject suggestion modified reaffirm latter case.7 IV 38 number features persuade "governmental protect," Scott, 82, 91, 2187, 2194, 39 note outset "jeopardy" theoretical sense. entails "potential risk punishment," worthy virtually happen avoid. so. Once exercised, "wiped out." Mann 359 271 331 (1971). 40 significant concerns Burks. "affording proceeding." 11, 2147. stated "[t]he conveniently pinpointed lacking, prosecutor it." 8. "process review" resulted identification area ordinary procedure intervention creates hold back learn hone presentation second, unpersuasive. admittedly benefit seen defense, assess prosecution's most presiding expected acquit presented, substantial benefits defendants, Commonwealth.8 fact, 626-627, 2786 To way, observed Colten Kentucky, 407 104, 119, 92 1953, 1961, 584 (1972), chances "[i]n reality accept inferior what settlement seek superior 42 recognized, affords unavailable system. 11-12 traditional systems, matters law; retried. 631, invoke convince trier-of-fact beyond reasonable doubt, results. succeeds obtaining time, "[n]othing acquittal."9 632, 2788-2789. Although, Judge Campbell colleagues' reflects "intelligence logic," agree "relentless secondary precepts developed other, settings" led wrong result destructive "a useful procedure." 10. Accordingly, reverse Appeals. So ordered. 45 BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, concurring judgment. 46 I petition. join Parts opinion.1 analyze merits differently opinion. 47 rejects relying absence "government oppression" presence many reasons others, see infra, 324-326. completely option eminently kind might, apart analytical considerations, provide independent believe—nor understand suggest—that standing alone defeat otherwise 48 At blush, assumes, concedes, trial," ante, 309; opportunity" best challenge determination, decisions point, case" 1982) (opinion below); and, finally, seems acknowledge decision, trials, 309. establish unanimously reaffirmed just Terms ago, "retrial despite so." Hudson Louisiana, 450 40, 45, 5, 970, 973, 67 (1981).2 meets noting "claim [,not] effect. ." Ante, Invoking jeopardy," "legal judgment" "terminated" barred. Nor, enough constitutionally inadequate acting "he 50 presupposes identifiable point ended. 320. respectfully suggest, mere incantation phrase more, partakes "conceptual abstractions" elaborating attempted (1964). example, holds jeopardy-terminating judgments," approach sets apparent limits ability withhold necessary judgment," maintaining justifying gain And ignoring realities situation demanding state-court manages grappling common-sense intuition rendered end obvious "terminated."3 my knowledge, notion formalistic fashion. Until today, repeatedly emphasized is, best, label occasionally used why secured 15, 2149, (1978); (1970). But talismanic substitute analysis, 'never adopted majority Court,' " 1788 quoting Jenkins, 358, 369, 1006, 250 particular, retrials announced 672, (1896), never rested theory notwithstanding ending level proceedings, remained grounded justice." 1589. Tibbs Florida, 457 31, 102 2211, 2217, 72 652 (1982); DiFrancesco, 117, 131, 426, 434, 328 (1980); 89-92, 2193-2194, 343-344, 1022, (1975).4 provided fullest explanation permit reversals evidence: 53 "[Reversal] Rather, defective respect. When occurs, strong readjudication free concern insuring punished. 54 2149-2150 original) omitted). 55 abstract derives "[p]erhaps history jurisprudence"—that 'verdict [can]not violating Constitution.' (1977) (quoting 1195). represents contrary, "rational trier essential crime doubt," Jackson Virginia, 443 307, 319, 99 2789, 61 560 (1979), law. eyes brought him. policies less he, actually irrational lawless factfinder. 56 sure, engaged reversed retrial; forbids circumstances respect, quite stating prerequisite successful standards begs proceedings.5 provides, fortunate chose "determination 309, instead alternative reversal. event, like left [, not] effect." depend heavily grace court. 320-321. reasons, find invocation unadorned helpful resolving issues posed give content turning elaborated analogous 58 limb" Const., Amdt. added), facing previous Crist Bretz, 28, 2156, somehow ended; terminology, former "terminated." Of begun. half mistrial middle proceedings—even asserts concerned, predicate circumstances—such typically attendant verdict, dismissing case—objectively concluding giving rise effort begin another. 59 objectively analyzed terms namely, trials compe[l] (1957). posture objective sense leaves resumption implicate policies. 60 Hence, instances undoubtedly easily terminated, evade strictures withholding extreme examples, received guilty, justify refusing enter formal verdict; one-tier begun These hypothetical situations, unrealistic, nevertheless demonstrate Clause—like begun, supra—is turn solely entered Cf., 1354 ("what 'acquittal' controlled form judge's action"). ended complete inquiry; concluded, notably applying rule, policy literal language analytically distinct challenged or, instead, continuation first. Cases instance, permissible. E.g., 465-466, 62 considering consider Constitution. challenging contends both infected ignore plainly ended, satisfy [constitutional standard sufficiency]. [sufficiency] avoided; had, sufficient, verdict." 51, 2223 (WHITE, 2220 (majority opinion) (noting ordering "obligations enforce laws"). 63 limitations First, informed characterization status proceedings; resolution turns essentially relationship Second, terminating place preserved presented.6 64 undeniably courtroom naturally understood completed Arguably, so, regard vacating itself, rule. remedies, authorized vindicate 302-303; Arizona Washington, 434 497, 824, 717 (1978).7 context attended type "terminate" trial-level substantially traditional, generally (1972). context, insist rebut prosecution's. eventuality control. ordinarily assumption influence factfinder favor. expectation presumably maximum dedication engender degree contrast, dissenting pointed out, defining characteristic "two facts." dissenting) knows conclusion, demand chance innocent. knowledge permits adopt advance strategy opportunity. can, stronger intention introducing evaluating case; addition, risks presentation, dangers around. Perhaps importantly, realization throughout mitigates irrevocability attends factfinding beginning end. prospective entitlement diminishes Furthermore, strategic advantage gained enhanced virtue share equivalent advantage. notes, "prosecution 311. notes "[a]lthough points appealed—a practice prohibited 306-307. What distinguishes me, compel prosecution, opportunity.8 reduces surrounding 68 unaffected earlier second-tier. 55. post, 331-332, (STEVENS, judgment). authoritativeness reliance them, promised amount process. prospect bear Faced believes sustained, select achieves advantages flowing Even choice hedge it, selection itself emotional tier. 69 70 POWELL, THE CHIEF JUSTICE 71 O'CONNOR jurisdiction. continue wrongly indicated accepting law—as reason explains, interpreting include defendant, already sentenced, imprisoned prison stayed habeas. "emphatically [Hensley] behind bars," 351-352, 1575, done obligated "keep peace." finds defaulted see, e.g., Bartlett, 374 744, 1203 trivializes historically oppression, petty subject. 73 tack, I, II-B, III, WHITE's 74 STEVENS, 75 character substantive procedural questions. Properly analyzed, raises claims: entry deprived liberty answered, 76 easy. If, found, Such unconditional freedom. true, afforded vacated, demonstrated, custodial status. eliminate liberty. Due Process deprive adduce doubt. (1979). Therefore, deprivation difficult. concede assumes 314 (BRENNAN, becomes time. BRENNAN seem prohibit 308; 318 common proposition success says jeopardy; unconstitutional attachment 308-309. writes frames 317-319. makes unhelpful, 313-319. entered—or establishing judgment—respondent's premature. 79 central presents, ever, claim—that trial—adjudicated. answers "never." disagree. suggest current cognizable Jackson. sustained here, fall apply equally insufficient: "[A]n 16, 2150 original).1 81 remedy, adjudicate enter, nunc pro tunc, entitled. entered, Or, associated foreclosed; additional survive preclusive belatedly entered.2 82 reasoning leads me case—not rather, place. answering important address. suggests, "Lydon 303 presided "judicial determination" sufficient. erroneous—indeed insufficient—but deny determination. prosecutor's Virginia inappropriate disruption orderly processes exercise remain weighs strongly, decisively, "This considerations comity forgo power." Francis Henderson, 425 536, 539, 1708, 1710, 149 (1976). comply simultaneous-objection rules, weighty enforcement rules. Engle Isaac, 456 107, 1558, 783 Wainwright Sykes, 433 72, 2497, 594 85 One weightiest favoring speedy, efficient, uninterrupted disposition interest, abstain exercising thereof disrupt ongoing See, Hicks Miranda, 422 349, 2281, 2291, 223 (1975); Huffman Pursue, Ltd., 592, 599-601, 1200, 1205-1207, 482 Perez Ledesma, 401 84-85, 91 674, 676-677, 701 (1971); Younger Harris, 37, 41-45, 746, 749-751, 699 86 statutory statute, 2254, Rose Lundy, 455 509, 518, 1198, 1203, 379 Indeed, concerning pretrial doctrine, cautioned threatens processes. Braden 30th 410 484, 490-493, 1123, 1127-1129, (1973). Thus, disrupting proceedings.3 87 squarely implicated over November 20, 1979, 29. delayed four years. While delay attributable litigation years' worth review.4 88 uphold similar delays become routine Already 14,000 year claiming Defendants eventual punishment, leverage plea negotiations.5 speed efficiency quickly eroded collateral intervened wholesale occur counsels strongly jurisdiction.6 permitted fashion comes play. postponement render entirely nugatory. meritorious, complete. likely precisely omitted relatively simple misdemeanor procedure, offered likelihood substance heard impending argues proceedings.7 prevail, prosecutors aware eventually ultimate availability reduce violation. 310-312, especially harsh one. By electing accepted election refusal violation, indicate unavoidable endure balance underlie abstention doctrines avoiding postpone completed. assert claims, proceeding, determine made, concur O'CONNOR, 94 hear suggests exists whenever (i) minimal (ii) avenues Then, recognizing test greatly expand 302, emphasizes right." unnecessarily expands damage restricting analysis claims. prefer search principled understanding term read longer "pursuant" invoked appeared trial—together incidental consequence trial—have eliminated. derive progress. Every attend punitive sanctions dissimilar currently exposed. attach come pleases way connection interlocutory absent usually States," 2241(c)(3), 2254(a), themselves defective. Most exist protect conviction—not itself. regard, different. Here, incident regardless outcome, unconstitutional. incarcerated Constitution," violates rights. freedom, incurred jurisdictional statute. dictates relaxed definition incarceration imminent intervention, inevitable. "all [his] aside," 1575; 346, 347, 352, 1572, 1573, 1574, question. typical restrictions attending alone, purely executory decision. liberal conjunction unusual cf. 2254(b), possible My reading court," restraint, restraint converted hearing.a1 arise (as raised proceedings) exhausted. condition meet it. close exhausting hearing. functionally indistinguishable pressing exhausted, others not. inevitable, constraints much significant. stood ready incarcerate clear, 302-303, "unique" purposes. bring rationale specific (1977); supra; part, relaxing stands exception allegations inadvisable contains license exception. "Custody" touchstone relied 2254; infringements unlawful identified providing intervention. court" remains unable 27A(g) carve out special-purpose discussion dependent raised. extent treated purposes, principle, adopted. relevant part: "(b) An behalf corrective existence rendering ineffective prisoner. "(c) deemed section, raise, presented." Section specifically allows writs "rendering [state] prisoner." procedures avail himself allegedly arise. proceeded Yet candidly succeed. wrong, manner suggested submitted. hand instance. Otherwise, 2254. below misplaced. rational No suggested, created requirement. deal STEVENS disagrees perform function task however. concededly mandates. also, declaration circumstances. voluntary influences conclusion. Post, 325-326, expectations, rather recognize systems. During period studied, about 9% thousands disposed convictions session. systems almost 1982). altogether. unqualified submit sense, favorable attack slightest hint represented counsel, voluntarily. Part concur, footnote 7, infra. 85-90. violated recognize, available. Ultimately, ipse dixit cquitals, 1814. nowhere explains marks 187, (1957), Ex parte Lange, Wall. 163, 169, 872 (1874) ("The offence, went forb[ade] suffered convicted"). 329-330 judgment); 323-327. renewed offense—which acknowledges barred, 306-307—would "continuing" theory. approach, prohibition justified "twice added). Missouri Hunter, 459 673, 678, 535 (1983) ("With cumulative sentences sentencing prescribing legislature intended"). authority [is] approve "broad approach," 328, 3, 1760, 308, light modern "an amalgam interests—e.g., waiver, among others." Like Breed, Tibbs, eschewed shibboleth countervailing 39-42, quotes Green, relies, Holmes Kepner 195 100, 134-137, 797, 806-807, 114 (1904), discernible limit cause": "[I]t logically rationally man cause, however often tried. cause." proposed avoids tension 305-306 309-310. analogized permissible "trial," assumed, constituted "new was, trial" evidence—the case—and Ludwig's Contrary suggestion, each argument, argument's implying unexhausted submitted," 303, ignores "[b]efore 298. announcing proper 357, 366-367, 747, 752 (1980), jury-trial motion, forum asserted unavailing. advantageous defendant; indeed, strength characteristics undesirable unfair aspects forced decide burdens exchange benefits, scrutiny. 2788 Ward Village Monroeville, 57, 80, 267 41, 2218, (1982) ("A absolutely shields voted defendant"). resists system" selected tactical 324. discusses illusory acquits deserve know known incapable persuading Surely validly intentionally relinquishing right, requires. 191-192, 225-226, 17, 2150, enforced quid quo validates realized. if, petitioners sworn, operate BRENNAN's 315-318, construed "continue" Here proof, hence, explain, legitimate Without rial fundamentally violative refused tolerate 61-62, 83-84, (1972) (availability cure bias trial). am suggesting exhausted; II-B meritless antecedent entertained true technical exhaust inasmuch 322-323, jeopardized pending. all, judge-made premature unjustified interference Hawk, 321 114, 116-118, 448, 449-450, 572 (1944) (per curiam); ex rel. Kennedy Tyler, 269 13, 17-19, 2-3, 138 (1925); Davis Burke, 179 399, 402-403, 210, 249 (1900); Royall, 117 241, 251-252, 734, 740, 868 (1886). approximately seven months months. observation intend criticism anything, promptness. inevitable adjudicated commendable dispatch. approved judges minimize adjudicating possible. Nevertheless, quality harried bound suffer. elsewhere, cope pressure "interlocutory" showing few days first- hurry-up justice, surely impractical (it certainly transcribe recording trial), adjudicated. findings problem remedied adducing a1 custody, deciding

Category: 0