Document: 435 U.S. 850 98 S.Ct. 1547 56 L.Ed.2d 18 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Jeffrey R. MacDONALD. No. 75-1892. Argued Jan. 9, 1978. Decided May 1, Syllabus A defendant may not, before trial, appeal a federal district court's order denying his motion to dismiss an indictment because of alleged violation Sixth Amendment right speedy trial. Pp. 853-863. 4th Cir., 531 F.2d 196, reversed and remanded. Kenneth S. Geller, Washington, D. C., for petitioner. Bernard L. Segal, San Francisco, Cal., respondent. Mr. Justice BLACKMUN delivered the opinion Court. 1 This case presents issue whether defendant, trial.1 2 * In February 1970, respondent Jeffrey MacDonald was physician in military service stationed at Fort Bragg North Carolina. He held rank captain Army Medical Corps. 3 Captain MacDonald's wife their two daughters were murdered on 17 respondent's quarters. Respondent also sustained injury that occasion. The police, Army's Criminal Investigation Division (CID), Federal Bureau Investigation, Fayetteville, N. Police Department all immediately began investigations crime. On April 6 CID informed he under suspicion and, same day, relieved duties restricted pursuant Art. 30 Uniform Code Military (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 830, charged with murders. As required by 32 UCMJ, 832, investigating officer appointed investigate crimes recommend charges (three specifications murder, 118 918) should be referred general court-martial convening authority (the post commander) App. 131. 4 At conclusion proceeding, filed report which recommended against dismissed, civilian authorities named female suspect. 136. October 23, after review this report, commanding unit accepted recommendation dismissed charges. December granted honorable discharge reasons hardship.2 5 Following release from military, request epartment Justice, continued its investigation. extensive wide ranging. June 1972, submitted 13-volume recommending still further Supplemental reports transmitted November 1972 August 1973. It not until 1974, however, Government presentation grand jury United States District Court Eastern Carolina.3 January 24, 1975, indicted three counts first-degree 1111. 22-23. promptly arrested then released bail week later. July 29, denied number pretrial motions Among these double jeopardy grounds another denial Pet. Cert. 44a, 46a, 49a. Relying v. Marion, 404 307, 92 455, 468 (1971), concluded: "The trial does arise person has been 'accused' crime, did occur had returned." Trial scheduled begin August. 7 Appeals Fourth Circuit stayed allowed interlocutory decision Lansdown, 460 164 (1972). 42a. Appeals, divided vote, Court's remanded instructions indictment. 196 (1976). Government's petition rehearing, suggestion rehearing en banc, evenly vote. 2a. 8 panel majority recognized criminal generally is appealable. court, offered assumption jurisdiction particular case. stated, first, it considered claim pendent claim, Lansdown appealable Alternatively, although conceding "[n]ot every . merits appeal," "[g]enerally, defense reviewed final judgment," court stated "the extraordinary nature persuaded us allow appeal." F.2d, 199. 9 merits, concluded deprived dissenting judge without addressing jurisdictional issue, violated. Id., 209. Because importance question law, we certiorari. 432 905, 97 2948, 53 1076 (1977). II 11 frequently appealability orders cases. See, e. g., Abney States, 431 651, 2034, 52 651 (1977); Di Bella 369 121, 82 654, 614 (1962); Parr 351 513, 76 912, 100 L.Ed. 1377 (1956); Cobbledick 309 323, 60 540, 84 783 (1940). Just last Term reiterated or "piecemeal" appeals are disfavored. "Finality judgment as predicate appellate jurisdiction." U.S., 656, S.Ct., 2039. See 124, 656. 12 traditional basic principle currently embodied 28 1291, grants courts "all decisions courts," both civil criminal.4 rule finality force prosecutions "encouragement delay fatal vindication law." 325, 541. 126, 657. 13 cases twice departed prohibition piecemeal review. supra; Stack Boyle, 342 72 96 (1951). each instance, relied final-judgment rule's "collateral order" exception articulated Cohen Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 541, 545-547, 69 1221, 1225-1226, 93 1528 (1949). 14 stockholder's derivative action based diversity citizenship. Before entered, arose newly enacted state statute requiring derivative-suit plaintiff security applied court. defendants appealed. ordered posting security. properly assumed judge's ruling, affirmed. 15 emphasizing principle—well established even then—that there can no "even fully consummated decisions, where they but steps towards will merge. purpose combine one stages proceeding effectively corrected if when results." 546, 1225. appealed qualified "final decision," within language rested several grounds. Those summarized 658, 2040: 16 "First, disposed statute's applicability court; sense, leave matter 'open, unfinished inconclusive' [337 1221]. Second, simply 'step toward disposition [which would] merged judgment'; rather, resolved completely collateral cause asserted. Ibid. Finally, involved important would 'lost, probably irreparably,' await judgment; hence, effective, special, limited setting immediate. Ibid." Two years Cohen, doctrine holding reduce could supra. Writing separately case, Jackson author ) explained that, like "an fixing halting main trial—its issues entirely independent tried—and unless sentence, never all." 12, 7. Abney, returned theme, collateral-order permits so holding, emphasized special features jeopardy. pointed out, such constitutes "a complete, formal rejection defendant's claim. There taken avoid maintains barred Fifth Amendment's guarantee. Hence, Cohen's threshold requirement satisfied." 659, 2040. Secondly, noted very to, separable from, principal accused's impending i. e., accused guilty offense charged." perhaps most importantly, rights conferred Double Jeopardy Clause significantly undermined claims postponed conviction sentence." 660, 2041. III 19 application instant principles enunciated above precedents straightforward.5 Like grounds, rejecting plainly "lacks traditionally indispensable review," 2040, is, obviously sense terminating proceedings Thus, satisfies criteria identified sufficient warrant suspension rules judgment. 20 We believe clear satisfy those criteria. considerations militated favor Stock supra, absent markedly attenuated present keeping wha appear only other sought hold lacked entertain appeal. Bailey, 512 833 (CA5), cert. dism'd, 423 1039, 578, 46 415 (1975); Kyle 211 912 (CA9 1954).6 21 sharp distinction represent rejection" resolution necessitates careful assessment facts reflected Court, claims, therefore, best relevant have developed 22 Barker Wingo, 407 514, 2182, 33 101 (1972), listed four factors weighed determining They length delay, reason asserted right, prejudice delay. 530, 2191. must light interests designed protect: "(i) prevent concern accused; (iii) limit possibility impaired. Of these, serious last, inability adequately prepare skews fairness entire system." 532, 2193 (footnote omitted). 23 course, estimate degree impaired adequate tends speculative. indicate made trial—when better gauged—would denied. formal, con ention; stake necessarily "remains open, [and] inconclusive" pronounced 24 Closely related "threshold upheld clearly fit description. (double jeopardy); (bail reduction). already noted, exists divorce between conduct (which often central claim) events Quite contrary, usual intertwined. 25 Even accurately measured nonetheless sufficiently outcome largely satisfied acquittal resulting prosecution's failure carry burden proof. "[t]he elements [the accused's] guilt innocence," since eliminated grievance having put contrast, interest served Speedy protection factfinding process essence passage time frustrated ability establish innocence crime charged. Normally, fairly assessed. 26 Relatedly, described, description employed, involving judgment." quoting demand reduced legal practical value destroyed vindicated trial.7 some superficial attraction argument trial—by analogy rights—must insure nonspeedy ever held. Both doctrinally pragmatically, fails. Unlike afforded Clause, either face according encompass "right tried" prior enjoyed all. itself, offends constitutional guarantee If outlined deprive loss, definition, occurs Proceeding compound deprivation suffered. 27 Furthermore, cases, above, difficult make examination constituent trial.8 Appellate position than vindicate yet shown infringed. IV preceding discussion demonstrates, compels itself dispositive. Our conclusion, reinforced policy underlie 1291. 29 Significantly, strict adherence guarantees trial." 658. Fulfillment impossible Many defendants, willing tolerate attendant upon hope winning "is generically different any enshrined Constitution accused" "there societal providing separate times opposition accused." 519, 2186. Avalos, 541 1100, 1110 (CA5 1976), denied, 430 970, 1656, 363 things, prove increase cost society maintaining subject detention, prolong period during commit crimes. Dickey Florida, 398 30, 42, 90 1564, 1571, (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring). 31 Allowing threaten precisely values manifested Clause. And assertions delay-caused become self-fulfilling prophecies necessary disallowing previously observed, nothing about circumstances support inherently limits availability 521-522, 2187-2191. equires least colorable showing once offense, arrest "every incarcerated substantial restrictions liberty." 537, 2195 (White, dismissal 1291 honored, denial. V sum, decline exacerbate intruding whose obtain review.9 therefore reversed, consistent opinion. 34 ordered. 35 BRENNAN took part consideration reads pertinent part: "In prosecutions, shall enjoy public impartial State wherein committed ." Respondent's him. ex rel. Toth Quarles, 350 11, (1955). federal-court reservation. §§ 7(3), 1111, 3231. Title reads: Canal Zone, Guam, Virgin Islands, except direct Supreme Court." rely demonstrate That distinguishable. defendants' predicated Act, 3731 (1964 ed., Supp. V), which, time, provided "An behalf following instances: "From sustaining bar, jeopardy." Currently, (1976 ed.) provides: lie decision, judgment, dismissing information more counts, clause prohibits prosecution." Obviously, neither former version nor current anything whatsoever do justifications proffered exercise (see 852-853) persuasive us. "pendent" vitiated 662-663, 2041-2042, (1977) (decided opinion), over otherwise nonappealable though joined jurisdiction. Cerilli, 558 697, 699-700 (CA3), 434 966, 507, 54 452 Appeals' alternative rationale—that "extraordinary nature" merited appeal, meritorious—is unpersuasive. "Appeal cannot depend case." Carroll 354 394, 405, 77 1332, 1339, 1442 (1957). factual however "extraordinary," Under controlling statute, power decisions," concept Congress defined "in terms categories." 1339. Admittedly, value—to unusual litigant—in triumphing rather it, regardless substance But truism confused quite distinct proposition certain (because ntailed, advantage litigant sooner) paradigmatic. Certainly, fact proper remedy violated, see Strunk 412 434, 2260, 37 (1973), mean enjoys safeguarded Dismissal sanction immunity prosecution, defective, or, usually, evidence him seized Amendment. led conclude pursue appeals. 663, 2042; Cogen 278 221, 227, 49 118, 120, 73 275 (1929); Heike 217 423, 430, 539, 821 (1910). who successfully tried. view our reach Similarly, express latter 199 (1976), declined address motion.

Category: 0