Document: 331 U.S. 469 67 S.Ct. 1330 91 L.Ed. 1610 UNITED STATESv.SMITH et al. No. 498. Argued March 11, 1947. Decided June 2, Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, See 68 28. Mr. Douglas W. McGregor, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Robert T. McCracken, Philadelphia, Pa., respondent, John Memolo. No appearance Hon. William F. Smith, District Judge. Justice JACKSON delivered the opinion Court. 1 The United States in this case sought writs mandamus and prohibition from Court Appeals directed to judges Middle Pennsylvania require that an order by which a new trial was granted one Memolo be vacated. 2 convicted tax evasion after jury before Judge Smith. Three days later filed motion wnd given leave file reasons its support. He 54 such as court's denial continuance quash indictment, bill particulars, verdict. complained also action discharging some petit jurors, admission exclusion evidence, instructing jury, conduct toward defendant his counsel said have been prejudicial. On same day Smith denied sentenced three years imprisonment fines. 3 appealed, assigned errors all grounds and, addition, trial. Third Circuit affirmed with per curiam declaring it could perceive no substantial error proceedings. v. Memolo, Cir., 152 F.2d 759. Petition certiorari Court, States, 327 800, 66 S.t. 902, 90 1025. Therefore, issued mandate affirmance conventional form commanded 'such execution further proceeding had cause, according right justice, laws ought had, appeal notwithstanding.' then taken into custody on April 8, 1946, imprisoned federal penitentiary. 4 following Clerk received dated 8th 'that judgment heretofore entered vacated verdict returned set aside, defendant.' It accompanied 'memorandum' reciting history 'This while pending, reconsidered urged support is our upon reconsideration interest justice should more particular ground order. thereupon released penitentiary bail. 5 Government's petition directing vacated, allowed intervene. answered asserting 'was accordance authorized Rules Criminal Procedure effective 21, particularly Rule 33 thereof.' referred memorandum but did not elucidate granting consideration, court below sitting en banc prohibition. 156 642. Two five dissented. 6 appellate long-used adapted appealed causes contained special directions peculiar case. neutral issues here raised nothing terms either expressly or prohibited power make turns entirely cited relied 7 provides: 'New Trial. may grant if required justice. If without vacate entered, take additional testimony direct entry judgment. A based newly discovered evidence made only within two final judgment, pending remand any other shall finding guilty time fix during 5-day period.' 18 U.S.C.A. section 687. 8 first sentence rule declaratory 'in justice' instead catelogued they might been.1 generality question required. But says must act effect intervening power. Such provisions there are relate filing motions defendant. 9 last puts five-day limit than newly-discovered suggested law stood adoption New Rules. Generally speaking, over judgments at common expired term Mayer, 235 55, 67—69, 35 16, 18—20, 59 129. There was, however, three-day limitation move May 7, 1934, 292 662, U.S.C. § 688, 688. 33, sentence, extended period days, otherwise because evidence. expiration repealed 45(c). 10 now literal language places making motion, does survives courts. Briefly, thought intervenor argues prevents asking times specified, permits judge retrial request time. result, view annulment limitation,2 would trials own lingers indefinitely. several why construction acceptable. 11 function courts review tentative decisions jurisdiction unless 'final.' Judicial Code, 128(a), 28 225(a), 225(a). Question finality court, formally denying record, reserves change mind has elicited. In reviewed specifications found none warrant reversal. All vain reviewing body reached conclusive determination orders being appealed. practice authorize process exercised advisory capacity regardless decision, aside basis appeal. 12 Moreover, strange deprived do what asked when person most concerned, yet him petition. condition exercise made, serious constitutional raised. For obviates objection defendnt m ake double jeopardy. Murphy Massachusetts, 177 155, 160, 20 639, 641, 44 711; cf. Ex parte Lange, Wall. 163, 21 872. This intervenor, example, tried, served some, although little, court. After case, he none. necessary us decide whether amount jeopardy.3 That issue presented procedure enough suggest we avoid will raise issue. 13 another reason, reluctant hold continuing initiative go open ask. To approve followed almost certainly subject private appeals application friends convicted. We think relief can openly judge, terminates properly initiative. needs reflection propriety trial, liberty timely therefor. 14 Support interpretation respondent rises fear miscarriage trials, occurring were part knowledge latter, adequate provision. Newly-dicovered 33. former, habeas corpus provides remedy jurisdictional Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 58 1019, 82 1461, 146 A.L.R. 357; Walker Johnston, 312 275, 61 574, 85 830; Waley 316 101, 62 964, 86 1302; Adams rx rel. McCann, 317 269, 63 236, 87 268, 143 435. Possibility unredressed injustice therefore remains prejudicial happenings trial.4 entertain extend so long thinks proper consideration course extension indefinitely insurance contrary, passes, ability pass fairness dissipated incidents nuances give way immediate business. decision soon ended possible, deferred until trial's story uncertainty dimness things past. 15 majority shocking suggestion mature correct reaction different. doubt many cases occur very injustices survive denies detailed recital affirms. possibility seems too remote induce appeal, may, even service begun, whole proceedings start over—if indeed forbidden.5 When draftsmen Civil Procedure, adopted Rules, wanted initiative, express words. 59(d), 723c. Government entitled sought. accordingly reversed direction vacation Judgment reversed. Section 269 391, less generally 'All where usually law.' like put granted, never gave district applied, mightas readily interpreted exception present construed restricted worthy note defendant, say Before limited duration term. supra. indefinitely, seem considerable comment fundamental called forth. Yet hardly means contends does. Stewart, Comments Federal Marshall L.Q. 296, 303. abolishing rule, substitute indefiniteness. precise times, independent term, prescribed. policy confine constant periods. Notes 45. Nor need intervention judge's amounts consent second Although reserved empowered nature coram nobis 'to bring pronounced matters fact passed upon, material validity regularity legal itself. * *' 68, 19, 129, difficult conceive situation criminal today appropriate. Of course, investigate obtained fraud whatever modification necessary, Universal Oil Products Co. Root Refining Co., 328 575, 66S.Ct. 1176 , 1447.

Category: 0