Document: 395 U.S. 784 89 S.Ct. 2056 23 L.Ed.2d 707 John Dalmer BENTON, Petitioner,v.State of MARYLAND. No. 201. Reargued March 24, 1969. Decided June 23, M. Michael Cramer, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Peter L. Strauss, the United States, as amicus curiae, at invitation Court. Francis B. Burch, Baltimore, Md., respondent. Mr. Justice MARSHALL, delivered opinion 1 In August 1965, petitioner was tried in a Maryland state court on charges burglary and larceny. The jury found not guilty larceny but convicted him count. He sentenced to 10 years prison. Shortly after his notice appeal filed Court Appeals, that handed down its decision case Schowgurow v. State, 240 Md. 121, 213 A.2d 475 (1965). Appeals struck section constitution which required jurors swear their belief existence God. As result this decision, petitioner's remanded trial court. Because both grand petit juries had been selected under invalid constitutional provision, given option demanding re-indictment retrial. chose have conviction set aside, new indictment followed. At second trial, again charged with burglary. Petitioner objected retrial count, arguing because first larceny, would violate prohibition against subjecting persons double jeopardy same offense. judge denied motion dismiss charge, This time offenses, 5 count1 sentences run concurrently. On newly created Special claim rejected merits. Md.App. 647, 232 541 (1967). discretionary review. 2 last day Term, we granted certiorari, 392 925, 88 2297, 20 1384 (1968), limited writ consideration two issues: 3 '(1) Is clause Fifth Amendment applicable States through Fourteenth Amendment? 4 '(2) If so, 'twice put jeopardy' case?' After oral argument, it became clear concurrent sentence count might prevent from reaching issue, least if any error affected only conviction. Therefore, scheduled reargument, 393 994, 481, 21 460 following additional question included original writ: 'Does 'concurrent doctrines,' enunciated Hirabayashi 320 81, 105, 63 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774, subsequent cases, continuing validity light such decisions Ginsberg New York, 390 629, 633, n. (88 1274, 195), Peyton Rowe, 391 54 1549, 426), Carafas LaVallee, 234, 237—238 1556, 554), Sibron 40, 50—58 1889, 917)?' 6 Solicitor General invited file brief expressing views participate argument. 7 all questions before us, find no bar our issue. merits, hold Double Jeopardy Clause is Amendment, reverse I. 8 outset are confronted jurisdictional problem. specified certiorari were affect conviction,2 reversal require State change terms confinement. Whatever status conviction, probably stay prison until he served out burglary.3 there, these circumstances, live 'case' or 'controversy' suitable resolution by Court, issue moot? asking an advisory abstract hypothetical question? answer crucial, well settled federal courts may act context justiciable controversy. Muskrat 219 346, 31 250, 55 246 (1911); see Flast Cohen, 83, 94—97, 1942, 1951, 947 (1968). 9 language used number Court's opinions be read indicate valid removes necessary elements dot rine' took root country quite early, although earliest manifestations occurred slightly different contexts. Locke Cranch 339, 364 (1813), cargo belonging plaintiff condemned libel containing 11 counts. Chief Marshall, speaking unnecessary consider Locke's challenges declared, simply enough, 'The however, opinion, 4th good, renders decide others.' Id., 344. Similar reasoning later applied where singe general rested convictions several counts indictment. Drawing upon some English cases dicta Lord Mansfield,4 Claassen 142 140, 146, 12 169, 170, 35 966 (1891) held defendant validly one 'the other need considered.' most widely cited application approach rather than single sentence, imposed 1774 (1943). offenses received three-month sentences. challenged constitutionality convictions, affirmed lower court's judgment considering rejecting challenges. Since valid, 'unnecessary' challenge 85, 1387. doctrine has widely, somewhat haphazardly, decisions. times seemed say raises Some baldly declared judgments 'must upheld' good. Barenblatt 360 109, 115, 79 1081, 1087, 1115 (1959); Gainey, 380 63, 65, 85 754, 756, 13 658 chosen weaker language, indicating 'may either valid.' Roviaro 353 53, 59, 6, 77 623, 627, 639 (1957). And occasion, ignored rule entirely decided even though there Putnam 162 687, 16 923, 40 1118 (1896). One can search related ones, without finding satisfactory explanation doctrine. See Hines, 256 F.2d 561, 562—563 (C.A.2d Cir. 1958). But whatever underlying justifications doctrine, seems us cannot taken rule. Yates 355 66, 75 76, 78 128, 134, 95 (1957); supra. Moreover, past, recent mootness criminal make perfectly does remove create 917 did become moot expiration imposed. We noted obvious fact life do entail adverse collateral legal consequences.' 55, S.Ct., 1899. concluded mere possibility conneces ary 'impact actuality' canvassed possible effects convictions,5 repeat analysis here. It enough possibilities case. For example, few prior felony purpose enhancing habitual statutes, actually constituted separate day.6 counted him. Although remote one, give adversary cast justiciable. Sibron, impeach character future trial. could explain arose transaction, able appreciate subtlety. cannot, therefore, lacks jurisdiction certain circumstances appellate court, matter discretion, (as Hirabayashi) allegations made particular party.7 judicial convenience. That subject must canvass today, however. sufficient present purposes multiple II. 14 While apparently agrees argues consequences so violation should treated species 'harmless error.' General, while commenting length facts case, suggests treat principle efficiency permits judges avoid issues appreciable impact rights party. Both argue bear burden convincing review Petitioner, hand, sees command errors possibly defendant's rights, therefore validity, ar ule 15 special resolve dispute. survives convenience, good reason apply direct Md.App., 650—651, A.2d, 542—543. unclear whether always raised appeal, notwithstanding sentences,8 interest keeping alive;9 if, here, importance party, wonders why pass it. turn law about informed, propose, courts, accept question. they question, well. eventual still doubt.10 Should attack successful, reduced less five years, then clearly right reviewed. said supra, 56—57, 1899, certainly preferable now later.11 reasons, bar, appropriate reach certiorari. III. 1937, landmark Palko Connecticut, 302 319, 58 149, 82 288. Palko, indicted first-degree murder, murder degree Connecticut appealed won argued incorporated, requirement person 'be offense twice limb.' disagreed. Federal standards States. Only when kind subjected 'a hardship acute shocking polity will endure it,' id., 328, 153, apply. order affirmed. appeals continued lesser standard. See, e.g., Brock North Carolina, 344 424, 73 349, 97 456 (1953). 17 Recently, 'increasingly looked specific guarantees (Bill Rights) determine conducted due process law.' Washington Texas, 388 14, 18, 1920, 1922, 18 1019 increasing 'has notion applies 'watered-down, subjective version individual Bill Rights * *." Malloy Hogan, 378 1, 10—11, 84 1489, 1495, 653 (1964).12 Term 'fundamental American scheme justice,' Duncan Louisiana, 145, 1444, 1447, 491 Sixth Amendment.13 today represents fundamental ideal heritage, Amendment. Insofar inconsistent holding, overruled. represented basic rejected. cut cloth Betts Brady, 316 455, 62 1252, 86 1595 (1942), counsel determined deciding each denial 'shocking universal sense justice.' 462, 1256. relied Twining Jersey, 211 78, 29 53 (1908), compulsory self-incrimination element process. overruled Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 83 792, 799 (1963); Twining, (1964). Our thoroughly long totality disclose fairness.' Once guarantee Governments. Palko's roots thus away ago. recognize inevitable. 19 nature hardly doubted. Its origins traced Greek Roman times, established common England Nation's independence.14 Bartkus Illinois, 359 151—155, 676, 697, 684 (1959) (Black, J., dissenting). many law, carried into jurisprudence Country medium Blackstone, who codified Commentaries. '(T)he plea autrefoits acquit, former acquittal,' wrote, 'is grounded maxim England, man brought more once offence.'15 Today, every incorporates form law.16 Green 184, 187—188, 221, 223, 199 (1957), '(t)he idea, deeply ingrained Anglo-American system jurisprudence, resources power allowed repeated attempts convict alleged offense, thereby embarrassment, expense ordeal compelling anxiety insecurity, innocent guilty.' very beginning part tradition. Like jury, jut ice.' judged, watered-down standard interpretations provision. IV. stand applied. acquitted forced suffer 193—194, 227, '(c)onditioning coerced surrender another exacts forfeiture plain conflict jeopardy.' absolutely void. placed 'jeopardy' void indictment, argues. argument sounds bit strange, since quietly 'void' accepting aside; worst seem voidable option, answered here over 70 ago Ball, 163 662, 1192, 41 300 Millard Fillmore Ball indicted, together men, William T. Box Indian Territory. codefendants convicted. They ground erroneously failed aver place Box's death. All three defendants retried, sustained claim, technical invalidity tried. refused allow Government allege own deprive benefit acquittal jury. 667—668, 1194. '(A)lthough fatally defective, yet, cause void, *,' aside objections. 669—670, 1195. totally indistinguishable. has, Green, waive. Yet wants earlier objections, defect do. Petitioner's stand. V. 22 contends evidence, inadmissible alone, introduced joint prejudiced evidence.17 all. face record violation. To evidentiary error, explore evidence definitions burglary, examine detail. think determination unaided courts.18 Accordinl y, 'just circumstances,' 28 U.S.C. § 2106, vacate below remand vacated further proceedings opinion. ordered. 24 Judgment remanded. 25 WHITE, concurring. 26 I agree extension conclusion constitutes comment wisdom applying appropriate. 27 increasingly congested dockets, often requiring delays scarce. Where concurrently each, sustains pressing since, regardless outcome, prisoner remain jail upheld. Rather permit languish careful redundant futile conclusion, better employed moving business. convenience judge, fairness litigants. say, unreviewed never prisoner. release recidivism prosecution, testimony pick examples. Nevertheless, are, hypothesis, immediate confinement, experience gives indication frequently which, rule, challenge, directly attack. Arguably, deny man, consecutively, equal protection significance invidious theoretical. 30 situation arise demonstrate being him, work harm stemming reviewed grievance becomes real. point unless lack cured supplying entitled myself, postponed review, reserves (ante, 791, 7), presents insuperable difficulties. Appellate cold record, deal stale facts. There nothing inherently unfair permitting colder irrelevant human need, litigants' demands r e pressing. Whether delayed hearing involving confession, yet address. prove impossible unfortunate byproduct initially crowded docket. foregoing dimensions, preserved proper administration attack, theory concerning reliably predicted concrete prejudicial date, initial prefer 32 HARLAN, whom STEWART joins, dissenting. 33 bedrock rules governed, continue govern, adjudicative processes disposition avoided whenever fairly possible. Today turns back sound refusing, flimsiest doctrine' far-reaching 'incorporated' Due Process Fourteenth, making lock, stock, barrel Indeed, manifest pains 'reach out' important 34 dismissal accordingly called for. Despite feel constrained also express my merits what conceive stake. decides, agree, moot, entertainment sought moot. However, emphasize, agreement position vitality decline carrying 'concurrent' foreseeably significant appellant. pointed out, plays role conserving energy courts.1 already overworked courts2 invariably full detail me senselessly doctrinaire.3 A. 36 noted, exists thi instance, directed claims impediment concurrent, otherwise tainted having taint merit. 37 finds likely involve difficult points soundest course. ante, 797-798. examination convinces pertinent elementary. And, unlike am deterred prospect 'examine detail,' 798, 42-page 38 conclude real taint. Burglary consists breaking entering dwelling house nighttime intent steal, take, carry personal goods another. Md.Code Ann., Art. 27, 30(a) Larceny common-law crime, consisting taking property owner permanently. Fletcher 231 190, 189 641 (1963). Evidence show entered locked night off household appliances. latter was, course, plainly relevant tended steal. 39 bases primarily proposition missing appliances excluded 'collateral estoppel,' assumed bad grounds estoppel trials Amendment,4 admission makes conclusive, proceedings, those matters 'actually litigated action *.' Cromwell County Sac, 94 351, 353, 195 (1877).5 Constitution provides: 'In Jury shall Judges Law, fact, except sufficiency sustain conviction.' Md.Const., 15, 5. Hence, solely jury's unique view necessarily 'determined' fact. 42 follows effect proceeding, fail.6 43 simultaneous inapplicable reason: account conviction.7 44 No reasonably predicted. itself notes 'few States' sentencing offender, concedes 'this one.' Ante, 790-791. When recalled felonies conviction,8 vanishing point.9 45 considered generally proceedings. potential insignificant. based series acts part. readily attention trier impeached. Predictably, knowledge identical origin reduce extra negligible proportions. Thus, imagine fewer consequences. C. 46 nonetheless holds '(b)ecause case' 'continuing convenience.' 792. 'special circumstances' 'taint' desirable courts. perceive difficulties justify remand. 47 'in (state courts) rule' reached 'double themselves. concludes '(s)ince (the well.' 792-793. baffles me. determining guided '(w)here reference arising course usually pursued departed reasons.' Silver Louisville & N.R. Co., 175, 193, 451, 753 (10 9); Ashwander TVA, 297 288, 345, 56 466, 482, 80 688 (1936) (Brandeis, concurring). 'important reasons' exist, regarded bound merely declined fully court.10 occasions, justification doctrine.11 48 believe wishes abandon salutary well-established declining advance necessity, free complexities perceive, help eagerness provision D. 49 shown, satisfies preconditions Reliance enable substantial Accordingly, improvidently granted. 50 Having dismissed, ordinarily go further. indicated outset, felt impelled observations respecting complete overruling truly great decisions, expression how fare traditional approach. 51 hold, accordance 288 (1937), take Fifth, such. casualty far unchecked march toward 'incorporating' much, all, Clause. began, majority, 1961 Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 81 1684, and, stopping end Term. step expressed oposition, see, 672, 1700 (dissenting); Ker California, 374 44, 1623, 1635, 726 (1963) (concurring result); 1497, (1964) Pointer 400, 408, 1065, 1070, 923 (1965) Griffin 609, 615, 1229, 1233, 106 (concurring); Klopfer 386 213, 226, 988, 995, (1967) 171 1444 particularly undertook 'selective incorporation' support history reason.12 Under pressures closing days content rest written opinions, save raise voice protest subtly, profoundly, eroding basics system. 52 More broadly, impervious pervasive philosophy embodied attribute perceptive timeless words Cardozo 'watering down' indeed revealing symbols extent weighing anchors fundamentals Finally, judged is, standards? A recapitulation advisable. simultaneously appealed, holding declare reindictment re-indicted retried offenses. accused rooted law.13 country, presently State.14 '(w)hat permitted try bring U.S., 153. hesitation stating retry previously errorless idea State's convicting wrongdoers satisfied fair ending acquittal, accused's repose thereafter precedence, indubitably "principle justice traditions conscience people ranked fundamental." 325, 152. simple. Had o nviction, surely serve sentence. originally contained indictment; lacked jurisdiction; proceed previous 57 contention nullity 'lacked jurisdiction' unconvincing. appears willingly consequence procedure, avail himself 'jurisdictional' appealing crucial legitimate jeopardize condition conviction? interest. Certainly purest fiction 'waived' 'consented' charge. 'waiver' (1896), appeal. articulated Trono 521, 292 (1905), successful manslaughter Clause.15 dictated Brantley Georgia, 217 284, 514, 768 (1910), per curiam, citing authority, Georgia amount States.' 285, 515.16 recognized rationale 'conceptual abstraction' obscures illuminates clash societal interests. Tateo, 377 463, 1587, 1589, 448 apparent Brantley, insofar affirmance longer law. 59 Nor sorts interests reversed unusual State.17 obtained deemed too weighty 'granted immunity punishment constitute reversible leading 1589. allowing like accused, assure 'free corrosio error' produced verdict. 153.18 60 composition Society's punishing vindicated retrying acquitted, error-free process, Palko. increase litigation habeas corpus district ordered resentence petitioner, Benton Copinger, 291 F.Supp. 141 (D.C.Md.1968), pending Fourth Circuit. Part V, infra. Of infected convicted, problem not, 'tainted.' dispute, Grant Astle, Doug. 722, 99 Eng. Rep. 459 (1781); Peake Oldham, Cowp. 275, 98 Eng.Rep. 1083 (1775); Rex Benfield, Burr. 980, 664 (1760). Street 394 576, 579—580, 3, 1354, 1359, 572 (1969); 237—238, 1559, 554 (1968); 633—634, 2, 1276, 1277, majority apparently, offender follow stricter described text. collected A.L.R.2d 1262—1267 (1952), accompanying supplements. inadequacies procedure postpones proposed reasons stated, attempt impose refusal problems. presented Compare Meade 198 489, 892 (1951), Marks 230 108, 185 909 (1962). 7, stronger total abolition compared attacked collaterally suits post-conviction relief. Quoting Ohio ex rel. Eaton Price, 263, 1463, 1469—1470, 1708 (1960) (opinion Brennan, J.). list Duncan, 148, 1446. J. Sigler, 1—37 (1969). W. Commentaries *335. 78—79; 435, 354, (1953) (Vinson, C.J., danger tempted compromise charge erroneous greater Hetenyi Wilkins, 348 844, 866 1965), cert. denied, sub nom. Mancusi Hetenyi, 383 913, 896, 667 (1966). Note, Individualized Criminal Supreme Court: study Dispositional Decision Making, Harv.L.Rev. 1260, 1272—1273 Memorandum Amicus Curiae 23. Counsel estimated during 10% appeals. Carrington, Crowded Dockets Courts Appeals: Threat Function Review National 542 constitutionally dictum Hoag 356 464, 471, 829, 834, 913 (1958): 'Despite wide employment, entertain grave doubts requirement. Certainly, held.' 470 834; Sealfon 332 575, 68 237, 92 180 (1948); Oppenheimer, 242 88, 68, 69, 61 161 (1916). Restatement, Judgments 68(1). sentene 'still doubt.' 793. 10-year 15-year subsequently resentencing appealed. outcome probability inoperative, manifestly negligible. Cf., 55—56, 1898, Supplementary Brief Respondent 20, 6. So discover, Cichos Indiana, 385 271, 175 (1966); Hamm City Rock Hill, 379 306, 384, (1964); Bell Maryland, 1814, 822 Machinists Street, 740, 1784, 1141 (1961); Rice Sioux Cemetery, 349 70, 614, 897 (1955). (1965); (1959). strict accuracy, join above joined dissenting wrote memorandum 1700, Clark supra; White's 33, 1506; concurring 409, 1070; 617, 1234; separately concurred 995. concept constitutions jurisdictions 1787. 695—697, 77—117. realm, 'peculiar factual setting' 197, 228, 229, Frankfurter. 198. Stewart member decided. Brantley. detailed analyses interests, Mayers Yarbrough, Bis Vexari: Trials Successive Prosecutions, 74 (1960); Van Alstyne, Gideon's Wake: Harsher Penalties 'Successful' Appellant, Yale L.J. 606 Comment, Twice Jeopardy, 262 Jeopardy: Reprosecution Problem, 1272 placing offense.' Kepner 100, 133, 797, 806, 114 (1904). 134—137, 807 (Holmes,

Category: 0