Document: 344 U.S. 424 73 S.Ct. 349 97 L.Ed. 456 BROCKv.STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. 34. Argued Oct. 23, 1952. Decided Feb. 2, 1953. Mr. Robert S. Cahoon, Greensboro, N.C., for petitioner. Ralph Moody, Raleigh, respondent. Justice MINTON delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The petitioner and two others, Jim Cook Elmer Matthews, employees on strike from a mill at Tarboro, North Carolina, were arrested firing five shots passing auto into house watchman mill, J. D. Wyatt. Wyatt's was occupied time shooting by himself, his wife, daughter son-in-law, latter couple's baby. After shooting, Matthews taken to jail. In presence sheriff, police officer, petitioner, stated that had helped plan assault fired shots. 2 tried first found guilty with deadly weapon. Before judgments entered their convictions, placed trial. State put three witnesses stand, son-in-law. then intending use testimony corroborate other witnesses. refused answer questions ground such answers might tend incriminate them, counsel informed court in event an adverse judgment they would appeal therefrom Supreme Court Carolina. trial upheld refusal answer. represented necessary present its case fully before jury, moved withdraw juror sworn panel declare mistrial. did so, stating: 'being ends justice require have available (sic) when is entitled those testify after cases been disposed Court, discretion withdraws * orders mistrial this same be continued.' objected. 3 Carolina affirmed convictions Matthews. v. 231 N.C. 617, 58 S.E.2d 625. proceeded impanel jury second time, it conclusion panel. He objected do so place him jeopardy thus deny due process law, contrary provisions Fourteenth Amendment Constitution United States. His objection overruled, he testified as witness State. sentenced years' imprisonment. From judgment, appealed which conviction. Brock, 234 390, 67 282. sought certiorari here, we granted. 343 914, 72 649. 4 has said there no double because defendant presented another if interest so. This long common-law rule supra; Dove, 222 162, 22 231; Guice, 201 761, 161 S.E. 533; Weaver, 35 203, 13 Ired.L. 203. 5 question whether procedure under Fifth States not raised case, applies only federal jurisdictions. Palko Connecticut, 302 319, 149, 82 288; Twining New Jersey, 211 78, 29 14, 53 97. 6 us requirement shall offense violates law required Amendment. here different circumstances. supra, murder degree degree. Pursuant statute obtained reversal errors retried, convicted degree, death. An or stand twice jeopardy, violation process. 7 held denied law. order indicate nature process, asked questions: 8 'Is kind state subjected hardship acute shocking our polity will endure it? Does violate 'fundamental principles liberty lie base all civil political institutions'? surely must 'no." 328, 153, 288. 9 Here same. 10 favored judge try best served. Wade Hunter, 336 684, 69 834, 93 974; Thompson States, 155 271, 273—274, 15 73, 74, 39 146. As page 690, 638, 974, 'a can discontinued particular circumstances manifest necessity doing, failure discontinue defeat justice.' either both parties may wise jury. involving what hard fast laid down. pattern picked out facts each case. pettern does fundamental essentials trial, 'the very essence scheme ordered justice,' 11 affirmed. 12 Affirmed. BLACK took part consideration decision 14 FRANKFURTER, concurring. Once agreed claim made—freedom being criminal charge—must tested independent scope Due Process Clause basis incorporation Fourteenth, application guarantee specific situation makes relevant phrasing common result. I, therefore, deem appropriate add word Court's opinion, I join. 16 judicial history prohibiting any person 'subject offence life limb' serves good pragmatic confirmation compelling reasons why original Bill Rights limit actions Federal Government conflicting views expressed Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 21 872; Kepner 195 100, 24 797, 49 114; Trono 199 521, 26 121, 50 292; re Bradley, 318 50, 63 470, 87 500; subtle technical controversies provision against given rise. Implications mood fair dealing exacts prosecution offenders. A falls short obligation callously subjects individual successive retrials charge acquitted prevents proceeding termination favor accused merely allow prosecutor who incompetent casual even ineffective see cannot better time. 17 Unless say justified concluding requesting oppressive accused, warranted finding through record seem me justify finding. Chief VINSON, dissenting. 19 indicted home Wyatt four persons therein. arrest, confessed, charging, brock Brock made confession. 20 together. Wyatt, Hathaway Bardin, sheriff county, confessions of, cook own behalf. There verdict Judgment used foregoing again house. offered They declined self-incrimination, sustained privilege. 23 At point, Solicitor continuance pending final motion granted, ordered. Thereafter, imprisonment Their 1950, 25 Subsequently, brought again. interposed plea former denied. Proper exceptions herein preserved. Then pleaded indictment. witnesses, Brock's substantially similar evidence reiterated rifle Thereupon, called home. convicted, two-year holding properly 1951, 27 urging thereby guaranteed We granted certiorari. 1952, 28 For urged could grant stronger some later and, avoid defendants engaged crime, sheriff. behalf Immediately followed. conviction entered. No appears record. willingly upon It crime. evidence. position. Under circumstances, knew should known testify. State's in, testify, would, date, able since might, differently additional facts, than remembered withdrawn continued Cook. Court.'1 30 sole presents fairness results reached free, thinks probably won stop insist day men field. 31 Orderly secured rules allowed ask just done well defense poorly. limitation scales are kept equal balance.2 recently that, applying concept judges large apply personal standards. Rochin People California, 342 165, 205. Thus, considered many jurisdictions utilized determining basic requirements orderly hence Wolf Colorado, 1949, 338 25, 1359, 1782. 32 contends fairness. always Garrigues, 1795, 276, 278, adopted following strong language: 33 '* reigns sovereigns Stuart family, prevailed, discharged purpose having future day; power exercised benefit crown only: but doctrine abhorrent every principle safety security, ought receive least countenance courts country. James second, Revolution, came examination, down L. Coke revived. suffered court's officer separate without giving verdict; agree convict, party's innocence; perhaps advantage himself then. Perhaps dead, gone away, attendance procured, accident prevent attendance. more especially improbable possess advantages—So discharged.' (Emphasis supplied.) 34 Speir, 1828, 491, 493, 494, 498, 499, 502, pointed out— Hall Judge.—'In guilt innocence prisoner little subject enquiry, merits be, collateral Although prisoner, unfortunately guilty, escape punishment, consequence favor, yet remembered, bulwark those, who, innocent, become persecution, whose conviction, procured one third, not.' 36 Taylor, Chief-Justice.—'In remarkable Kenlocks, reported Foster *. majority Judges rejected animadversion authority cases, occurred period misrule preceding revolution. these, Jury capital Crown, want sufficient bring Crown prepared! 37 'These stains administration show extremes, discord, passions urge them trample most salutary law; Judges, office sovereign, eager pander appetite blood forfeitures. 38 already protects crimes descriptions, right, inferred Constitutions meant much more, design protect where cause.' But, told day, departed earlier rule. directed 1942, 1931, Bass, 1880, 570; Andrews, 1914, 166 349, 81 416; Ellis, 1930, 200 77, 156 157. 40 Guice introduced rested Counsel nonsuit. withdrew mistrial, take course appeal. disposing matter, said: 41 misdemeanors, felonies capital, below discharge furtherance justice, need find constituting discharge, ordinarily action reviewable. review.'3 42 Bass 'had dissolve hold new security proper exercise rests review reverse judge, responsibility oath office.'4 43 While ramifications evolved fall within idea American shown universality jeopardy. Constitution, inapplicable prohibits states, Maryland, Massachusetts, north Vermont, contain clauses forbidding jeopardy.5 And states prohibition law.6 44 jurisdiction support Carolina's us, my research fails single prop supporting On hand, eight occasion previous unable Six firm position allowing trial.7 seventh, Iowa, accord above view,8 language Iowa point mistrials defendant.9 Alabama, eighth state, permitted trial.10 Both however, involved extreme conscience permit cases,11 Alabama indicated result unprepared 45 gleaned often contributed beyond control prosecutor, prevented Only clear precedent simply failed ready trial.12 46 noncapital felony judiciary followed justice. certainly easy way out, view fact Union rule, ponder conclude hardwon victory achieved field 'double jeopardy' lost small affirmance 47 Attorney General relies 1937, 288, Palko, State, statute. Connecticut prejudicial committed court, reversed trial.13 error tainted 48 apparent Legislature provided legislature Congress places issue constitutionality posture respect decided consider protective limits Constitution. Certainly, decide statute, asking obtain free Here, asks suit convenience endeavor strengthen nothing about inveigle entrap proceed controlled am comforted which, view, envisions embrace Speaking Cardozo 51 'What over him, consider. deal other. attempting wear multitude accumulated trials. this, go until corrosion substantial legal error.'14 52 also comfort contained FRANKFURTER'S concurring says 'when time.' snugly embraced statement understood today. cited 'to served.' 1894, 146, likewise referred opinion. quarrel these cases. agree, court-martial midst campaign overthrow forces Germany. get certain date reached, further advances toward enemy. Army needed officers participating tactical purposes, dissolved. testified, member disqualified Grand filed discharged, Nothing attention condition obtained. overruled cited. 54 'Those clearly establish invested whenever, taking consideration, act, public otherwise defeated, jury; meaning fifth amendment constitution States.'15 55 submit evidence, ordering promote 56 DOUGLAS, 57 still fresh men's minds, accused. 'The Co.Inst., 110, Inst., 227, general exception verdict. Afterwards, only; II, examination,1 Lord revived addition, unless prisoner; woman labor; charged insane, like; prisoner's request let exception, advantages.' 241. 59 That shape conception call halt middle await favorable make up deficiencies promise protection loses great force thought written. practices Stuarts freshly mind. resolved reach shores. R. 16. Cf. classic expression edifice stands, symmetry, many, greater before.' U.S L.Ed 763, 534. 575. Brunn, 1945, Wash.2d 120, 154 P.2d 826, 157 A.L.R. 1049. Benham, 1829, Conn. 414; Gilpin 1923, 142 Md. 464, 121 A. 354; Commonwealth McCan, 277 Mass. 199, 178 N.E. 633, 78 1208; Clemmons, 1934, 207 176 760, O'Brien, 106 Vt. 97, 170 98. Allen 1906, Fla. 1, So. 593 (during secure absent witness, mistrial); ex rel. Meador Williams, 117 Mo.App. 564, 92 S.W. 151 (prosecution respond subpoena); Barrett, 1805, Caines, N.Y., 304, Am.Dec. 239 (State secondary document notice produce); Richardson, 1896, S.C. 166, 220, L.R.A. 238 (prosecutor mistake home); Pizano 1886, Tex.App. 139, Am.Rep. 511 answered started incorrectly present); Little, 1938, 120 W.Va. 213, 197 626 (at noon recess back 1:30 p.m.; returned p.m. mistrial). leading total approximately fifteen decisions Callendine, 1859, 288 (witness name indorsed indictment, court). Parker, 1885, 66 586, N.W. 225, Falconer, 70 416, 655. Nelson, 1845, Ala. 610 (jury irregularly too early proceedings revealed issues impaneled sworn); Hughes 1860, 351 (before intoxicated testify; occurred). 'If really was, prosecuting prepared entertain serious doubts cause matter when, intervention irregularity proceedings, improperly impaneled, improper sworn.' 614. 231, 232 (court desired 'was presently available'); 533 (defendant nonsuit testimony; instead ruling declared 1936, 669, 186 657. 274, strict Coke, during reign (1603—1714), notably treason trials Whitebread Fenwick, How.st.Trial 315. close Crown's satisfy two-witness retried remedied defect. See Hale's P.C. 294. practice condemned 1746 example abuse subject. Kinloch's Case, Foster's Reports 22. 1698 Holt, formulated regarding matter: '(1) withdrawn, tho' consent it. (2) consent, otherwise. (3) causes, parties.' Carthew's 465. Those construed guides discretion, breach plead Queen Charlesworth, B. & 460; Winsor Queen, 118 Eng.C.L.R. 141; Lewis, Cr.App.R. 180. dissenting Crampton, J., Conway Regina, Irish L.Rep. 165 et seq.

Category: 0