Document: 430 U.S. 564 97 S.Ct. 1349 51 L.Ed.2d 642 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.MARTIN LINEN SUPPLY COMPANY et al. No. 76-120. Argued Feb. 23, 1977. Decided April 4, Syllabus After a deadlocked jury was discharged when unable to agree upon verdict at the criminal contempt trial of respondent corporations, District Judge granted respondents' timely motions for judgments acquittal under Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 29(c), which provides that 'a motion judgment may be made . within 7 days after is (and) court enter acquittal. .' The Government appealed pursuant 18 U.S.C. § 3731, allows an appeal by United States in case 'to appeals from district dismissing indictment ., except no shall lie where double jeopardy clause Constitution prohibits further prosecution.' Court Appeals dismissed appeal. Hel: Double Jeopardy Clause bars appellate review and retrial following entered Rule 29(c). Pp. 568-576. (a) 'controlling constitutional principle' focuses on prohibitions against multiple trials, v. Wilson, 420 332, 346, 95 1013, 1023, 43 232, presents threat successive prosecutions, not offended. 568-570. (b) normal policy granting right retry defendant mistrial does determine outcome apply here since valid were express authority strict compliance with successful governmental reversing would necessitate another or proceedings resolve factual issues going elements offense charged. 570-571. (c) 'acquittals' substance as well form, plainly 29(c) view had proved facts constituting contempt. 571-572. (d) 29 recognizes legal distinction between judge respect invocation protections Clause. P. 573. (e) contemplated artificial distinctions situations enters prior submission 29(a), but jury's return 29(b), thereafter discharged, situation involved here, chose await deliberations and, its failure reach verdict, acted discharge. Sanford, 429 14, 20, 50 17, distinguished. 573-572. 534 F.2d 585, affirmed. Frank H. Easterbrook, Washington, D. C., petitioner, pro hac vice, special leave Court. J. Burleson Smith, San Antonio, Tex., respondents. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion 1 A 'hopelessly deadlocked' corporations Western Texas.1 Federal such .'2 Timely respondents six discharge resulted two months later entry acquittal.3 sole question presented our decision whether these are appealable 3731. Section 3731 'shall prosecution.'4 Fifth Circuit held lay 585 (1976). reasoned that, reversal acquittals enable try second time, bar 'leads inescapably conclusion lies directed ordered below.' Id., 589.5 We certiorari. 917, 308, 282 affirm. 2 * It has long been established cannot without congressional authorization. 336, 1018, 232 (1975); Sanges, 144 310, 12 609, 36 L.Ed. 445 (1892). Only Terms ago Wilson traced uneven course statutory, until 1970 Congress amended Criminal Act, U.S., 336-339, 1018-1019, history need repeated here. See also Sisson, 399 267, 307-308, 90 2117, 2138-2139, 26 608 (1970). suffices present purposes this found enacting Title III Omnibus Crime Control Act 1970, 84 Stat. 1890, 'Congress intended remove all statutory barriers allow whenever permit.' 337, 1019. Therefore, unless barred Constitution, authorized 3 Consideration limitations inhibiting largely unnecessary during regime restrictions. But see Fong Foo States, 369 141, 82 671, 629 (1962); Kepner 195 100, 24 797, 49 114 (1904). However, now removed relevant inquiry turns itself, it become 'necessary take closer look policies underlying order more precisely boundaries Government's rights cases.' supra, 339, 1020. In few cases decided have taken 'closer look,' many shaping restrictions brought into sharper focus. 4 'The development common-law origins suggests appeals, least those require new trial.' 342, 1021. Thus trials. 1023. At heart concern permitting sovereign freely subject citizen same arm potent instrument oppression. Clause, therefore, guarantees State permitted make attempts convict accused, 'thereby subjecting him embarrassment, expense ordeal compelling live continuing state anxiety insecurity enhancing possibility even though innocent he guilty.' Green 355 184, 187-188, 78 221, 223, 199 (1957); Downum 372 734, 736, 83 1033, 1034, 10 100 (1963). '(S) ociety's awareness heavy personal strain represents individual manifested willingness limit single proceeding vindicate very vital interest enforcement laws.' Jorn, 400 470, 479, 91 547, 554, 27 543 (1971) (Harlan, J.).6 5 animating prohibition rests threshold conditions. afforded implicated only accused actually placed jeopardy. Serfass 377, 1055, 265 (1975). This attaches empaneled sworn, or, bench trial, begins receive evidence. Illinois Somerville, 410 458, 471, 93 1066, 1073, 35 425 (1973) (White, J., dissenting); supra. Further, government thReat postverdict dismissal rendered guilty because restoration necessarily result if prevailed. supra.7 II 6 None considerations favoring appealability Court's failed verdict. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579, 580, 165 (1824), applicable of, strictly with, Those judgments, according wording Rule, act terminate attached.8 And least, 'further some sort, devoted resolution charged Jenkins, 358, 370, 1006, 250 one automatically averted. Rather, we must inquire significance Perhaps most fundamental rule jurisprudence '(a) could reviewed, error otherwise, putting (a defendant) twice jeopardy, thereby violating Constitution.' Ball, 163 662, 16 1192, 1195, 41 300 (1896). example, verdicts subsequently formal entertained reversed ruling ground power direct circumstances disclosed record. reversed, holding although correctly believed 'that based egregiously erroneous foundation, (n) evertheless, '(t)he final, reviewed (the defendants) constitution." 143, 672. supra; 289-290, S.Ct., 2129; 392, 1064. applying teaching Foo, like cases, emphasized what constitutes 'acquittal' controlled form judge's action. 270, 2119; cf. 1018.9 judge, whatever label, resolution, correct not, 8 There can form. contempt.10 too clear belief prosecution "the weakest (contempt that) I've ever seen." F.2d, 587. entering acquittal, recorded prove material allegations beyond reasonable doubt" "defendant should 'not guilty.'" Thus, plain evaluated evidence determined legally insufficient sustain conviction. concluded determination insufficiency triggered protection.11 Government, however, disputes submits formally returned absolutely '(o)nce declared jury, any dissolved.' Brief 21. agree. Of course, argues, primary finders fact jurors. Their overriding responsibility stand potentially arbitrary abusive command sanction. For reason, prohibited conviction directing come forward Sparf & Hansen 156 51, 105, 15 273, 294, 39 343 (1895); Carpenters 330 395, 408, 67 775, 782, 973 (1947), regardless how overwhelmingly point direction. attempting override interfere jurors' independent manner contrary interests accused. 11 Such limitation role never inhibited his favor defendant. (1962), establishing binding nature dispositive point. Since merely replaces directed-verdict mechanism employed accords federal greater flexibility timing persuasive basis exists construing weakening court's jeopardy.12 Notes Advisory Committee confirmed intends substantive alteration creates purely modification device nomenclature accord realities.' U.S.C.App., p. 4504. Accordingly, 290, 2129, 'legal distinction' read implication, differently. argues direction, then discharged. effect matter timing. orders own defendant's 29(b) argument concedes preclude both retrial. If, chooses acts filed seven discharge, 13 persuaded. distinctions. Rather differentiations intentionally incorporated afford maximum opportunity consider care pending motion. Insofar desires error, irrational behavior, prejudice part dependent judgment, suffers disagrees discharged.13 extent designed provide additional protection filtering out deficient essentially identical before allowed verdict: either case, neither condemned nor exculpated panel peers absence intervention vindication action jury. 14 thus conclude treated uniformly accordingly, less than 29(a) (b). 17 (1976), dictate result. ended declaration mistrial. entered. Some four later, preparatory stage, prosecution's indictment. Because 'occurred several first begun,' id., 16, 21, characterized pretrial order,' ibid., governed linking Sanford highlights distinctiveness carefully distinguished "a adduced relating general issue case." 393, 1065, quoting 290 n. 19, 2130. falls squarely latter category: By language concludes attached, introduction issue. circumstance hold 'although sometimes permissible entered, foreclosed review.' 348, 1024. Affirmed. REHNQUIST took consideration case. STEVENS, concurring judgment. together unambiguous legislative history, makes perfectly did authorize intend acquittals.1 19 Prior recent amendment source great confusion, unruly child improved age,' 307, 2139, 608. construed incorporate obscure various types dismissals, directly Court, court.2 thing always 'no (could) theory decision,' 299, 2134. 20 changed law eliminating different kinds statute predecessors statute, part, reads: 21 'In decision, information counts, (emphasis added). 22 nothing suggest opposed dismissal, appealable. 23 demonstrates eliminate nonconstitutional acquittals. As recognized, Senate Report key history.3 opens describing purpose bill being serious problems frequently arisen rulings prosecutions other ..' S.Rep.No. 91-1296, (1970) Apart problem Supreme review, states 'major concerns total lack certain dismissals suppressions.' discusses length then-existing dismissals.4 7-12, stated 'intended liberally so effectuate courts permits On hand, amounting acquittal; true element offense.' 11. understanding demonstrated bill's sponsor floor. He summarized providing 'the dismisses acquittal'; letter Solicitor General explaining 'an 'judgment acquittal,' i. e., crime entitled jeopardy.' 116 Cong.Rec. 35659 (remarks Sen. Hruska). 25 explained Conference minor change bill. 338, That narrowed respects. 'terminating defendant,' expressly acquittal.5 short, stated, 'any terminating H.R.Conf.Rep.No.91-1768, (1970), U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News, 5848. Committee's deleting reference leaving (This deletion superfluous exception acquittals, deleted.) barring appeal, violate An attempt represented radical law. apparently understand legislation far-reaching effects; described 'noncontroversial do away perplexing jurisdictional Similarly, describes '(t) echnical States,' Admin.News 5848.6 Interpreting uncertain task. instance, clear: interested solely expanding indictment; desire unconstitutional. 28 I am satisfied answer question, demonstrates, clear. virtue merits. His ruling, therefore acquittal.7 concur 30 Chief BURGER, dissenting. 31 due deadlock. Once dismissed, ceased proceeding; they longer convicted undergoing trial. century half accepted properly reprosecuted mistrial, (1824). Therefore Judge's 'prior prosecute required defend.' 22, (1976).1 32 constitutionally phrased rather mechanical niceties expose defendants jeopardy; Amendment focus below. pass sufficiency, weight, Isaacs, 516 409, (CA5), cert. denied, 423 936, 96 295, 46 269 Wooten, 503 65, 66 (CA4 1974). '(T)he standard trier fact) could, would, find evidence.' Consolidated Laundries Corp., 291 563, 574 (CA2 1961) original). 33 law, fact; exonerate, convict, No legitimate requires insulated review. jeopardizes substantial presenting sufficient today wholly inconsistent intent drafters Notes. 1966 amendments state: 'No prejudiced post-verdict motion.' 4505. Surely recognized reprosecute 'legitimate government,' remain unaffected 34 Nor will clarity consistency administration justice system served today's holding. hinging post-trial label order, elevating over undermining theoretical framework Wilson-Jenkins-Serfass trilogy2 Morrison, 1, 24, decisions earlier Term. All litigants alike harmed uncertainty created. reasons, join respectfully dissent. 1971 respondents, commonly owned linen supply companies, their president, William B. Troy, violation consent decree 1969 final antitrust suit. petitions originally Appeals, 485 1143 (5 Cir. 1973). supplemental petition February 1975. 1975, returning not-guilty Troy announcing corporations. Six 27, provides: 'Motion Judgment Acquittal Motion Submission Jury. Motions abolished used place. offenses side closed offenses. If close offered granted, offer having reserved right. '(b) Reservation Decision Motion. evidence, reserve motion, submit decide returns '(c) Discharge renewed time fix 7-day period. set aside necessary making similar jury.' advised counsel parties inclined (respondents) appropriate made.' App. 31. said 'almost instructed Defendants' 'is doubt seen.' 30. pertinent Appeal Although provision authorizes 'dismiss(al)' 'acquittal,' sense, infra, 568. characterrizing 'directed verdict,' erred terminology, substitutes acquittal' verdict.' seen, 573, procedure marked speaks strongly treating predecessor invoking (1962). nonappealable finality disabling seeking punish once offense. Ex parte Lange, Wall. 163, 872 (1874). threatened mitigates shopping substantially reduces borne addition, preserving fairly attained obviously far investing resources reprosecuting entertained, earliest, 'after stage arises attached. (defendant's) otherwise.' terms 'if offenses.' specifically address reached conclusion. Suarez, 505 166 1974) (per curiam). tried alone, there full effect. 365-367, 1010-1011, Even though, proposed argued correcting sitting Jenkins refused accept theories permit reconsideration discharging framed explicitly noted subdivision (c), works undue sanctioned receiving jury: requirement primarily accorded defendant.' Cf. Singer 380 85 783, 630 (1965). Any demand limited 23(a) (jury waivable Government) qualified 29. dictum 232; 363-364, 1010, 250; 383-387, 1060-1061, 265, controlling reasons: First, dispute cases. Two conceded applicability Respondent O.T.1974, 73-1395, 2; 73-1513, 10. third simply issue, Petitioner 73-1424, probably Hence, unaided adversary presentation Moreover, re-examination undermine holdings. upheld clearly involve (Serfass dismissal; speedy grounds.) arguably grounds barred. Second, indicate text, 581, incorrect. supervising proper functioning system, hesitate mistake involving technical prejudicial reliance mistake. difficulty illustrated sharply divided conclusions opinions 608; Ponto, 454 657 (CA7 1971) (en banc); Apex Distributing Co., 270 747 (CA9 1959) banc). expressed 387 10, 1061 relevance 'well considered prepared' report Judiciary Committee, Schwegmann Bros. Calvert Distillers 341 384, 71 745, 751, 1035 (1951) (Jackson, concurring), affected adopted modified House-Senate Committee. H.R.Conf.Rep.No. 91-1768, (U.S.Code Cong 5842). contains explanation changes made, themselves consistent Report. ante, 337-339, 1018-1019.' Subsection Nature Limitation Dismissals,' statement now-archaic terminology original unnecessarily precludes appealing prosecutions.' 91-1296 5. current 'does large variety defect indictment, construction invalidity statute.' Ibid. gives examples comply discovery prosecution. refers use old "judgment sustaining bar," giving rise confronted S.Ref.No. 6. Subpart B deals Attachment Dismissals.' section concerned attached,' possible 7. example ruled Selective Service unconstitutional provided 'from acquittal.' S. 3132. When reported back Houses, cautious hardly proposal go limits: Senate, 'authoriz(ing) classes cases,' 42147 McClellan) added); House, broaden clarify 42197 Rep. Celler). pointed 429. entirely terminated terminated, favor, declared, sua sponte, Where manner, classical test determining retried Story's (1824): "We opinion, constitute future prisoner acquitted, again put defense. ." 15, relies heavily, while still progress. Unlike us, empaneled, yet begun deliberate. interrupts process, important jeopardized. frustrated lost. where, agree; already suggests, irrelevant technicality. midtrial process proceed

Category: 0