Document: 351 U.S. 513 76 S.Ct. 912 100 L.Ed. 1377 George B. PARR, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. Petitioner, v. Ben H. RICE. PARR ALLRED. No. 320 and 202 Misc. Argued March 28, 1956. Decided June 11, Messrs. Everett L. Looney, Austin, Tex., Abe Fortas, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Mr.Gray Thoron, respondent. Opinion the Court by Mr. Justice HARLAN, announced BURTON. 1 In November 1954 petitioner was indicted in Corpus Christi Division United States District Southern Texas, 17 F.R.D. 512, 519, willfully attempting to evade federal income taxes filing false returns years 1949, 1950 1951.1 April 1955 granted petitioner's motion transfer case Laredo District, finding that petitioner, a prominent political figure, could not obtain fair trial because local prejudice against him.2 Deeming itself without power elsewhere than defendant's consent,3 also found Government's claim it would or might under 'a severe handicap' trying Laredo.4 2 Shortly thereafter, on May 3, 1955, Government obtained new indictment Austin Western Texas same offenses.5 The next day moved leave dismiss first indictment.6 This over vigorous opposition an order dismissal entered.7 Petitioner appealed Appeals and, motion, court (one judge dissenting) dismissed appeal upon ground from final order. 225 F.2d 329. We certiorari, directing be heard both merits question appealability. 350 861, 106. Since we conclude appealable, do reach merits. 3 1. If indictment, is viewed isolation its will lie has been aggrieved. Only one injured judgment sought reviewed can appeal, regarding proceeding as separate prosecution, termination his favor. Lewis States, 216 611, 30 438, 54 637.8 So far standing concerned, makes no difference whether still leaves him open further whether, contends, bars prosecution operated give vested right tried only there. Thetesting effect must abide trial, then, if convicted, he have Cf. Heike 217 423, 539, 821.9 4 2. indictments together parts single fares better. For then dismissing considerations underlying historic requirement 'finality' appellate procedure require elaboration at this late date. See Cobbledick 309 323, 60 540, 84 783. general, 'judgment' 'decision' purpose 'when terminates litigation between parties case, nothing done but enforce execution what determined.' St. Louis, Iron Mountain & R. Co. Express Co., 108 24, 6, 8, 27 638. rule applies criminal well civil cases. Berman 302 211, 212—213, 58 164, 165—166, 82 204. 5 It argued 'final (a) terminated (b) cannot otherwise appeal. think neither point taken. 'Final means sentence. sentence judgment.' supra, page 212, 166. And viewing two being were superseding yet tried, much less convicted sentenced. interlocutory step review await conclusion 'whole matter litigated' namely, 'the convict accused crime charged indictment.' 429, 541. 6 Nor there substance reviewable indictment. correct contention precluded elsewhere, preserves point, certainly entitled conviction To hold 'final' stage defeat long-standing statutory policy piecemeal appeals. 7 3. find untenable secondary that, even final, falls within exceptions recognized such cases Cohen Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 541, 69 1221, 93 1528, Swift Company Packers Compania Columbiana del Caribe, 339 684, 70 94 1206. those cases, orders made during course held appealable they related matters outside stream main action subject effective part action. Unlike 'step toward disposition case' 'be merged 546, 1225. lack now 'deny fairly severable context larger litigious process.' 689, 865. True, hazard before get should 'bearing discomfiture cost innocent person painful obligations citizenship.' 325, 8 4. With petition filed Docket 202, Misc., file original writs mandamus prohibition Courts, designed Laredo.10 Although application stood abeyance pending determination questions involved writ appropriate dispose now, having fully present proceeding. 9 extraordinary issue. Such may go aid jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1651, U.S.C.A. 1651. issue them discretionary sparingly exercised. Rule Revised Rules Court, cited therein. where exceeded refused exercise jurisdiction, see Roche Evaporated Milk Ass'n, 319 21, 26, 63 938, 941, 87 1185, nor defeated does issue, cf. State Maryland Soper, 270 9, 29—30, 46 185, 189, 449. Here most claimed district courts erred ruling their cases; used thwart congressional 30, 943. 10 properly affirmed. 11 Affirmed. 12 No denied. 13 Denied. 14 Chief WARREN, with whom BLACK, DOUGLAS CLARK join, dissenting. 15 Parr, tax evasion Christi, Texas. He asked Laredo, impartial Christi. dissatisfied had law ask transferred some other district. situation, conceived idea Parr thereafter Laredo. protested all, place already determined obtained. His protest overruled. Appeals. That 1291, 1291. today affirms holding reaching Court's 1291 error 16 valid, decision case. true court. fact, But 'final.' after dismissal, did remain 'open, unfinished inconclusive'; 'tentative, informal incomplete.' There about dismissal. simply indecisive which ultimately result Parr. charge come institution time ever, appear almost fantastic interpretation otherwise. majority contend requisite finality, aggrieved thereby, relying 637. control here, since returned reviewed, applicable statute limitations barred any effort indict him. Here, had, believe clearly circumstances. 18 seems intimated, however, able raise somehow different brought write effect. should. countenance plain harassment turn out invalid Should occur, required undergo trials, another Section construed so bring result. 19 21 Federal Criminal Procedure allows defendants changes venue trial. grants privilege States. probably frequently shop around deems favorable try defendants. selected forum prosecute although, last 20 preceding, all tax-evasion arising Austin. choice unfair defendant, provide allowed frustrate court's selection circumvent fashion. 21(c) provides rule, shall continue' transferred. kind expressly contrary. specific trials impartial. object here escape decided full hearing given. reason why given requiring take removed interest fairness. reverse 145(b) Internal Revenue Code 1939, 53 Stat. 62, 26 145(b). Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. U.S.C.A.: 'The defendant division satisfied exists great division. 'c) 'When ordered clerk transmit papers duplicates thereof bail taken, continue division.' Petition's solely brief stated: 'We wish understood prefer Christi.' 518—520. opinion illuminated later remarks quoted note 7. differed allegations venue. Under 3237, indictable (where filed) prepared forwarded filing). 48(a): Attorney General attorney information complaint thereupon terminate. consent defendant.' opposed attempt prior transferring clear principal obtaining avoid regarded 'defendant's seat power,' manifest Judge Kennerly who (together Allred) acted earlier application. granting dismiss, 'I reached (upon Laredo) change granted. 'In conclusion, rather examining record, I gravely doubted administration justice generally, al. * 'But when came examine law, authority sent Amarillo, Sherman, Texarkana, places scene troubles could, find. not, say, favor either Government, feel best administered places. stated, understand law. discovered except (S)o 'Now fact covering presented District. '* evidently discretion dismissed. twenty-four bench district, recall ever hesitated requested Government. old rules (sic). dismissed, allow morning enormous record venue, shown reasons dismissed.' suggested prevented reindictment. alluded circumstance, 'legally aggrieved' released indictment; bar noted connection concluding observation moot event. support aggrievement, way analogy, relies four lower decisions appeals judgments nonsuit three asserting merits, established nonsuit, obviously loss judgment. Connecticut Fire Ins. Manning, Cir., 177 F. 893; Massachusetts Marine Schmick, 130; Iowa-Nebraska P. Daniels, 322. fourth Cybur Lumber Erkhart, 247 284, plaintiff took previous verdict reversed remanded directions direct evidence same; proceed remand. therefore, basis progress nonsuit—a substantial going controversy deprived nonsuit. circumstances are here. (Emphasis added.) denied Appeals, certiorari up prerogative stay proceedings afford permanent relief. subsequently stay, moot. Thus us.

Category: 8