Document: 442 U.S. 500 99 S.Ct. 2445 61 L.Ed.2d 30 Henry HELSTOSKI, Petitioner,v.H. Curtis MEANOR, United States District Judge, et al. No. 78-546. Argued March 27, 1979. Decided June 18, Syllabus Petitioner, then a Member of Congress, was indicted in 1976 for conspiring to solicit and accept, soliciting accepting, bribes return being influenced the performance official acts, namely, introduction certain private bills House Representatives. He moved Court dismiss indictment on ground, inter alia, that violated Speech or Debate Clause Constitution because grand jury had heard evidence legislative but motion denied. Thereafter, he petitioned Appeals Third Circuit writ mandamus directing indictment. The court declined issue writ, holding did not violate Clause. Held: Mandamus appropriate means challenging validity ground it Direct appeal available proper course. Pp. 505-508. (a) Once denied, there nothing further petitioner could do under trial prevent trial, an ruling clearly available. Cf. Abney v. States, 431 651, 97 2034, 52 651. 506-507. (b) designed protect Congressmen "not only from consequences litigation's results also burden defending themselves." Dombrowski Eastland, 387 82, 85, 87 1425, 1427, 18 577. Pp.507-508 (c) If Congress "is avoid exposure [being questioned acts done either House] thereby enjoy full protection [Speech Debate] his . challenge must be reviewable before [to trial] occurs." Abney, supra, U.S., at 662, S.Ct., 2042. P. 508 (d) Petitioner cannot viewed as penalized failing anticipate decision since controlling law announced time Court's order denying dismissal indictment, see DiSilvio, 520 F.2d 247, no more than affirm correctness holding. 508. 576 511, affirmed. Morton Stavis, Newark, N. J., petitioner. Stanley M. Brand, Washington, D. C., Thomas O'Neill, Jr., Speaker House, Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 question this case is whether violates Constitution.1 writ. We affirm. 2 * Helstoski served 1965 through Representative New Jersey. In 1974, Department began investigating reported political corruption, including allegations aliens paid money processing which would suspend application immigration laws so allow them remain country. 3 1976, returned 12-count charging others with various criminal acts. Only first four counts are involved case. count charged conspired U.S.C. § 201(c)(1) by accepting Helstoski's "being wit: Representatives." charge recited 16 overt 4 referred actual bills; 5th agreement introduce bill. entire conspiracy violation general statute, 371. Counts II, III, IV were substantive violations §§ (2): 5 "Whoever, public official[,] directly indirectly, corruptly asks, demands, exacts, solicits, seeks, accepts, receives, agrees receive anything value himself any other person entity, for: 6 "(1) act; 7 "(2) commit aid committing, collude in, allow, fraud, make opportunity commission States; 8 9 "Shall fined imprisoned." (Emphasis added.) "Public official" "official act" defined 201: 10 "(a) For purpose section: 11 " 'public official' ; 12 13 'official act' action question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding controversy, may pending, brought official, capacity, place trust profit." 14 Each Helstoski, acting aide, solicited Representatives behalf of" aliens. Essentially, charges against parallel those dealt Johnson, 383 169, 86 749, 15 681 (1966), Brewster, 408 501, 92 2531, 33 507 (1972). again accepted bribe "in Finally, each bill been introduced particular date. neither appeared nor submitted material prosecutor provided transcripts most, all, testimony witnesses, eight juries.2 Attorney explained possible prejudice told ninth invocation privilege Fifth Amendment. Moreover, sought resulting fact Judge one rule claim privilege. 17 contending process abused supported allegation abuse characterizing juries "discovery tools." effect, contended, permit select information presented indicting deprive demeanor especially himself. Meanor denied after examining transcript jury. held such justify invalidating found most "was prejudicial defendants, inculpating exculpating nature." two witnesses should have concluded Brady Maryland, 373 83, 83 1194, 215 (1963), required Government provide their testimony. require dismissal. 19 Approximately three months later, 1977, 20 mandamus. 511 (CA3 1978). It indistinguishable where even though contained references rejected argument invalid argued go behind valid its face. 21 seeking reversal here holding, argues extraordinary remedy constitutional command separation powers. contends assigns exclusive jurisdiction over all Congress. itself, urges, represents impermissible assertion function federal courts. challenges grounds. First, itself refers Any attempt restricting proof approved Appeals, will amount amendment violating Amendment right tried precisely form issued Second, when allowed consider notwithstanding him. II 22 Almost 100 years ago, explained: "The principle governs proceedings is, whatever can without employment it. lies practically remedy." Ex parte Rowland, 104 604, 617, 26 L.Ed. 861 (1882) (emphasis added). More recently we summarized considerations determining issue: 23 "Among these party issuance adequate attain relief desires, satisfy 'the showing [his] "clear indisputa ble." important remember large part matter discretion petition addressed." Kerr Court, 426 394, 403, 96 2119, 2124, 48 725 (1976) (citations omitted). 24 governed rules developed assessing petitions generally. enforcing commands agree guarantees vitally our system government therefore entitled treated courts sensitivity values require. unwilling, however, accept contention vehicle assuring circumstances shown here. readily secured review complained objectives now sought, direct 25 651 (1977), "pretrial orders rejecting claims former jeopardy constitute 'final decisions' thus jurisdictional prerequisites [28 U.S.C.] 1291." Id., reasoning undergirding applies force language particularly apt, context Double Jeopardy Clause: "[T]here doubt complete, formal and, court, final rejection defendant's double claim. There simply steps taken defendant maintains barred Amendment's guarantee." 659, 2040. 27 This equally true fundamental trial; clear noted: 28 "[T]he very nature collateral to, separable from, principal accused's impending i. e., accused guilty offense charged. arguing bars prosecution, makes whatsoever merits Nor does seek suppression plans use obtaining conviction. Rather, contesting authority hale him into face him."3 Ibid. added; citations omitted.) concludes: 29 rights conferred significantly undermined if appellate postponed until conviction sentence. [T]his has long recognized protects individual subjected punishments. guarantee twice put same offense." 660-661, 2041. That characterization echoed statement 577 (1967), 31 Here, becomes highly relevant; analogy, Clause, 32 predict Abney. But Circuit. See 248 n. 2a (CA3), cert. 423 1015, 447, 46 386 (1975). relevance Abney-DiSilvio holdings, read light predictable. hold wished denial course supra.4 Affirmed. 34 POWELL took consideration 35 BRENNAN, dissenting. 36 today's decision, professes "agree [the require." Ante, 506. Nonetheless, refuses protections "Helstoski indictment." 37 well excused views line out Joseph Heller's "Catch-22." utilize appeal. appeal, avenue barred. 4. Of course, dilemma short-circuited immediate Unfortunately, known today—for never exception longstanding forbidding interlocutory appeals.* And, holds, today too late. Values "vitally important" guaranteed sensitive treatment. provides "for they Senators Representatives] shall Place." Art. I, 6. together 78-349, 477, 2432, 12, concerns restrictions places admissibility promising introducing bills. described 12. challenge, raised stand. would, jurisdictionally time. Fed.Rule App.Proc. surprising anticipated basis footnote 1975 dealing different issue. (That opinion, like limited issue, far late helped defendant.) Although I extension based upon regard obvious. Nor, apparently, Government, carefully refrains endorsing view. Brief 92. certainly penalizing Congressman government."

Category: 7