Document: 400 U.S. 470 91 S.Ct. 547 27 L.Ed.2d 543 UNITED STATES, Appellant,v.Milton C. JORN. No. 19. Argued Jan. 12, 1970. Reargued Oct. 22, Decided 25, 1971. Syllabus Appellee was tried in Federal District Court on an information charging him with willfully assisting the preparation of fraudulent income tax returns. Following impanelling jury, prosecutor called to stand a taxpayer whom appellee allegedly had aided preparing his return. Act defense counsel's suggestion, judge warned witness constitutional rights. The expressed willingness testify, stating that he been rights when first contacted by Internal Revenue Service (IRS). refused permit testify until consulted attorney, indicating did not believe IRS. Although advised remaining witnesses their IRS upon initial contact, stated warnings were probably inadequate. Thereupon discharged jury and aborted trial so could consult attorneys. case set for retrial before another but appellee's pretrial motion dismissed ground former jeopardy. Government filed direct appeal this Court. Held: judgment is affirmed. Pp. 473—488. Affirmed. Mr. Justice HARLAN, joined THE CHIEF JUSTICE, DOUGLAS, MARSHALL, concluded that: 1 1. sustaining bar based plea jeopardy appealable Government, as long sustained, here, prior subsequent proceeding at which made. Cf. United States v. Sisson, 397 267, 90 2117, 26 608. 473—478. 2 2. Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause represents policy finality defendant's benefit federal criminal proceedings. 479—486. 3 (a) it recognized defendant can be reprosecuted after successful appeal, double policies are confined prevention prosecutorial or judicial overreaching. 483—484. 4 (b) has option have considered where judge, acting without consent, aborts trial, deprived 'valued right completed particular tribunal'. P. 484. 5 (c) In absence mistrial, doctrine 'manifest necessity,' Perez, 9 Wheat. 579, 580, 6 L.Ed. 165, commands judges foreclose scrupulous exercise discretion warrants conclusion justice would served continuation trial. 485—486. (d) A must temper decision whether abort considering importance being able finally conclude confrontation society through verdict tribunal might favorable him. 486. 7 3. here abused discretion, accordingly reprosecution violate Clause. 486—487. 8 BLACK BRENNAN lacks jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 because judge's action amounted acquittal, they join Court's view majority reach merits. 487—488. Louis F. Claiborne, Washington, D.C., appellant; Richard B. Stone, reargument. 10 Denis R. Morrill, Salt Lake City, Utah, appellee. 11 HARLAN announced opinion MARSHALL. 12 directly appeals order Utah dismissing, jeopardy, defendant-appellee returns, violation 7206(2). 13 originally charged February 1968 25 counts violating He brought Chief Judge Ritter August 27, 1968. After chosen sworn, 14 Government's motion. then commenced, calling its agent put evidence returns helping prepare. At these exhibits stipulated introduced objection. five taxpayers called, commencement examination, counsel suggested court agreed, proceeded, careful detail, spell out witness' say anything used prosecution against right, event such prosecution, represented attorney. indicated, however, given any warning time IRS, 15 asked prosecuting attorney if four similarly situated. responded contact. expressing inadequate, proceeded discharge jury; all into court, informed them considerable dangers unwittingly making damaging admissions factual circumstances. Finally, 16 defendant, Court, we noted probable jurisdiction. 396 810, 54, 24 64 (1969). argued 1969 Term thereafter reargument present Term. 1060, 1494, 682 (1970). 17 * contends, threshold, our 399 302—307, 2136—2139, 608 (1970), followed noting case, forecloses motion-in-bar provisions recent amendment.1 question fully briefed statute provided, relevant part, Supreme '(f)rom bar, jeopardy.' concedes, indeed rulings constituted 'motion bar' within meaning statute.2 issue 'put jeopardy' virtue impaneling declaration mistrial. supra, Court3—in discussing applicability provision actions there—concluded, inter alia, language applied whenever impaneled, even constitutionally retried Amendment. U.S., S.Ct., 2136—2139.4 19 Here impaneled mistrial ruling, dismiss grounds made second jury. contends understood apply offered rather than whose was, instance, essential sustain construction Sisson requires may offense impaneled. 20 We think better argument.5 dealt problem presented purporting arrest entry guilty returned very claimed constitute 'jeopardy' provision. attached rested Congress concerned, granting certain classes cases, avoid subjecting terminated manner either action. See 293 300, 2131—2135. 'compromise origins' Criminal Appeals Act, see id., 307, 2138, reflected concern, concern important consideration supporting canon strict traditionally statute. 296—300, 2133—2135; Will States, 389 90, 96—98, 88 269, 274—275, 305 (1967). 21 situation, ruling chronologically analogous facts Obviously, appealed Ritter's original Since explicitly contemplates nonappealability fits congressional excluding pleas abatement from class cases warranting appellate review. nonappealable status sort explainable terms disfavoring interlocutory rulings. discussion 274—275. 22 But does follow essentially insofar expressly contemplate resumption intended governmental later require earlier now accorded effect barring reprosecution. Indeed, recall paradigm illustrations motions common law, n. 2, seems much more likely allow review possibly premised erroneous theories concerning effects attaching ruling. 23 Consistently sustained proceeding.6 applicable Hence proceed merits claim Amendment rights.7 II prohibition placing 'twice proceedings.8 power government subject individual repeated prosecutions same cut deeply framework procedural protections Constitution establishes conduct And society's awareness heavy personal strain manifested limit single vindicate vital interest enforcement laws. Both considerations Green 355 184, 187—188, 78 221, 223, 199 (1957), underlying 'is State resources should allowed make attempts convict alleged offense, thereby embarrassment, expense ordeal compelling live continuing state anxiety insecurity, well enhancing possibility though innocent found guilty.' These led placed once trier facts, judge. 188, 223; Wade Hunter, 336 684, 688, 69 834, 836, 93 974 (1949). also true is, best circumstances, complicated affair manage. proceedings dependent instance most elementary considerations, e.g., health various witnesses, parties, attorneys, jurors, etc., prepared arrive courthouse times. one adds scheduling problems arising overloads, Sixth requirement restricts conducted speedily, becomes readily apparent mechanical rule prohibiting circumstances compel consent too high price pay added assurance security freedom harassment provide. As 689, 837 'a valued some instances subordinated public's fair trials designed end just judgments.' Thus 'jeopardy attaches' commences expresses underpinning guarantee implicated point remains, what precluded consent. dealing question, has, declined invitation litigants formulate rules categories will preclude retrial. Thus, 165 (1824), held capital had, reported itself unable agree. Story's Perez following thoughts declared defendant: 28 'We think, nature, law invested Courts authority giving verdict, whenever, opinion, taking consideration, there manifest necessity act, ends public otherwise defeated. They sound subject; impossible define render proper interfere. To sure, ought greatest caution, urgent plain obvious causes; and, especially, extremely how interfere chances life, favour prisoner. But, all, discharge; faithful, sound, conscientious rests, this, other responsibility Judges, oaths office.' Id., 580. 29 since standard testing declaring E.g., Simmons 142 148, 171, 35 968 (1891) (reprosecution barred letter published newspaper rendered juror's impartiality doubtful); Logan 144 263, 617, 36 429 (1892) 40 hours deliberation inability verdict); Thompson 155 271, 73, 39 146 (1894) juror grand indicting defendant); (1949) (retrial military court-martial due tactical field).9 30 case—Gori 367 364, 81 1523, 901 (1961)—while adhering main theme necessity' review—does suggest variation according determination party beneficiary Gori, discharging appeared prosecution's questioning lead introduction crimes. upheld which, while applying principle appears tie no abuse fact 'in sole defendant.' 369, 1527; dissenting Douglas, 370, 1527.10 31 instant relying principally permitted 'benefited' clearly compelled bad-faith aimed triggering get day court. If who turns court's motivation, trying protect prejudice, reasonably clear record insistence stopping properly motivated desire defendant. 'benefit' turning post hoc assessment hypothetical consulting own attorneys course serve insulate personally civil liability That conception benefit, involves nothing pure speculation. sum, Gori supra. 32 Further, limitation abuse-of-discretion side benefited adequately satisfy Reprosecution unnecessarily obviously subjects insecurity regardless motivation evinced do injury; inflicted must, view, appear result 'unfairly aids harasses defense.' Govt. Brief 8. 33 Certainly beyond prepared, social vehicle offense. example, wins reversal conviction. Ball, 163 662, 1192, 41 300 (1896); 189, 224, (1957). reflects interests, however defined, go far mobilize decisionmaking assure free harmful error. recognition For crucial difference between sua sponte situation perhaps, dispute acquittal. On hand, proceeding, tribunal.11 837. 34 valued, because, independent threat prosecutor, significant take occur thought warrant develop attributable overreaching, ordinarily assumed remove barrier reprosecution, necessitated error.12 motion, stands command leads Wheat., conscious refusal channel 691, 838, elusive nature foreclosing going still exercised; unquestionably factor need hold both sides standards responsible professional clash adversary process. Yet cannot evolve source rise declared, error part other, care himself potentially tribunal. perform imperfect world; area, bright-line only disserve competing interests recognize lack preparedness continue implicates speedy guarantee. Downum 372 734, 83 1033, 100 (1963). Alternatively, bear mind potential risks unwillingness prosecutions. Yet, final analysis, always able, favorably disposed fate. III 37 Applying Despite assurances involved litigation rights, disbelief views App. 42. probing inadequacy given, really try aiding theory tht incriminate taxpayers. When started answer that, off midstream immediately 42—43. It continuance; indeed, acted abruptly continuance, object opportunity so. examines surrounding abundantly effort account, Therefore, 38 BURGER, concurring. I plurality reluctance, frustration tried, solely accused about different shows claims outside classic mold twice over acquittal therefore left again However, merits, 42 STEWART, WHITE BLACKMUN join, dissenting. 43 today says 'abused discretion' categorically operates forestall 44 Judge's declare belief submitted false themselves incur testimony. apparently simply postpone apprised rights,1 scheduled new date granted Court.2 45 course, many encountering problems. One example acts himself. Tateo, 377 463, 467, 84 1587, 1589, 448. Another initiative, active objection 165. 968; 974. situations future prosecution. 'judge exercises help badly, affording another, accused.' 1526, 901. suppose misconduct kind occurs impermissible. 46 fall neatly conventional categories. There request (although suggestion triggered events followed), certainly analogized hung Conversely, requested slightest indication desired occur. Nor involving 'harassment,' attempt enhance conviction 47 purports resolve matter adopting 'abuse This said derive statement leading 580: 48 causes *. 49 construe passage mean determining guarantee, measure good practice. conspicuously failed meet standard, then, consequences error, bars my reasoning overbroad flatly inconsistent 50 during prejudicial inferring attorney's line presaged inquiry calculated inform crimes accused. prevent merits: 51 'Here way harmed brief revealed entire case. thus position start anew clean slate, prejudice eliminated foreknowledge quite unlike troublesome desires strengthen provokes accused, actually two receive absolution crime, proven completely, hastily interest, injustice disastrous precedent future.' 282 F.2d 43, (CA2 1960). 52 pass Appeals' neither nor augment conviction, concluded: 53 'Suffice unwilling, necessary consequence hark back formalistic artificialities seventeenth century procedure confine courts navigate narrow compass Scylla Charybdis. unduly hesitant conscientiously sensitive judgment—according lights immediate exigencies trial—for effective protection 369—370, 1527. 54 established, correctly, simple phrase enough questions kind. Whether sufficient determined reference purpose real 'abuse' process resulting like, outweigh punishment crime. context, practice, assessed deciding jeopardy.3 55 me true, insists, 'sole except inconvenience delay caused injured Had heeded advice, least possible substantially improved compulsory self-incrimination. resulted initiated mind. showing intent harass complete preview Even assuming plainly improper involve invoke 56 respectfully dissent recently amended. n., 6, infra. amendment begun enactment. Ibid. Our controlled codified 3731. common-law equivalent raise defenses pardon. Murdock, 284 141, 151, 63, 65, 76 210 (1931). construed broadly having preventing further prosecutions, Mersky, 361 431, 441—443, 80 459, 465—467, 423 (1960) (Brennan, J., concurring), narrowly confession avoidance, 455—458, 472—474 (Stewart, dissenting), included. Blue, 384 251, 254, 86 1416, 1418, 510 (1966). generally 53, 2135, portion members White's contended applies Constitution. relies 448 (1964), Oppenheimer, 242 85, 68, 61 161 (1916), ended raised parties Court; therefore, little significance point. limitations; res judicata. points Rule 12(b)(1) Rules Procedure permits Notes Advisory Committee. J.Moore, Practice 12.01(2) (2d ed. 1970). deprive delaying problem, inherent structure amendment; limitations ibid., depriving Soon Attorney General proposed amended argue attaches. 305—306, 2137—2138. enacted undertakes deal allowing 'to decision, judgment, district dismissing indictment counts, shall lie clause prohibits prosecution.' Omnibus Crime Control 1970, 14(a)(1), Stat. 1890 (January 1971). amendment. 14(b). S.Rep. 91—1296, pp. 6—7. cannot, suggest, classified 'acquittal' purposes First, contemplated STEWART's dissent, 488—489 explanation. 60. below exclusively reprosecutability declarations 55—59, contain post-mistrial Ritter. Of 290, 2129, characterization control classification goes articulate criterion assessing review: disposition legal basis adduced relating general *.' 290 19, 2130. utterly devoid reliance surely distinguishing whatever else done, 'acquit' sense. Two Terms ago States. Benton Maryland, 395 784, 89 2056, 707 Annotation: Jeopardy—Mistrial, 1509; J. Sigler, 39—47 Annotation, 9, 1511; 44—45. taken contrary view. there, subsequently coerced action, nonetheless foreclosed chose so, rely post-conviction redress wrong done words, 'voluntariness' validity guilty—whether trial—must distinguished impropriety barred. 468 3, 1590; 11, stated: 'So vacated, setting vacated afternoon, calendared again; again, am talk testify.' 46. agree reasons Part opinion. 100, contrary. out, 'lack guarantee,' Failure forward expeditious orderly serious presiding settled reversed permitted, Forman 416, 481, 412; Bryan 338 552, 70 317, 94 335. 448, statements

Category: 0