Document: 438 U.S. 204 98 S.Ct. 2699 57 L.Ed.2d 705 William SWISHER et al., Appellants,v.Donald BRADY al. No. 77-653. Argued March 29, 1978. Decided June 28, Syllabus Appellee minors brought a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking, on the basis of Double Jeopardy Clause Fifth Amendment as applied to States by Fourteenth, prevent State Maryland from filing exceptions with Juvenile Court proposed nondelinquency findings made masters that court pursuant rule procedure (Rule 911) permitting file such but further providing judge, who is empowered accept, modify, or reject, master's proposals, can act only record before master, except he may receive additional evidence which parties do not object. The District held juvenile subjected hearing master placed in jeopardy, even though has no power enter final order, and judge's review jeopardy second time, accordingly enjoined appellant state officials taking either finding his disposition. Held : does prohibit officials, acting accordance Rule 911, findings. Breed v. Jones, 421 519, 95 1779, 44 346, distinguished. Pp. 214-219. (a) require an accused stand trial rather Stat created system 911 single proceeding begins culminates adjudication judge. P. 215. (b) A provide prosecution forbidden "second crack" at accused, since presents its once then closed unless minor consents presentation 215-216. (c) Nor alleged ground it gives chance persuade two factfinders—the judge—violate Clause's prohibition against prosecutor's enhancing risk innocent defendant be convicted, Role confers role factfinder adjudicator reject proposals. 216. (d) There nothing indicate unfairly subjects embarrassment, expense, ordeal proscribed Green United States, 355 184, 78 221, 2 199, if participates attorney appears (and appear this practice), burdens are more akin those resulting permissible request for post-trial briefing argument following bench than "expense" full-blown trial. 216-217. (e) To extent judge makes supplemental manner permitted 911—either sua sponte, response State's juvenile's exceptions, supplemented object—he so without violating constraints. Jenkins, 420 358, 1006, 43 250 distinguished; cf. Scott, 437 82, 2187, 65. 217-219. 436 F.Supp. 1361, reversed remanded. George A. Nilson, Baltimore, Md., appellants. Peter S. Smith, appellees. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 This appeal three-judge Maryland. Nine minors, appellees here, 1983, seeking declaratory judgment injunctive relief recommendations court. minors' claim was based violation Amendment, through Fourteenth Amendment. Court's jurisdiction invoked 28 §§ 1343, 2281, 2284 (as written); jurisdiction, 1253. * In order understand present scheme use proceedings, necessary trace briefly history both antecedent schemes related litigation. 3 Prior July 1975, proceedings governed 908(e), Rules Procedure. It provided "shall hear cases assigned him court." directed that, conclusion hearing, transmit case "findings recommendations" If party filed these recommendations, they were "promptly . confirmed, modified remanded judge." If, however, exceptions—and delinquency hearings, had authority so—then, after notice, would "hear entire matter specific matters set forth de novo."1 4 city petition alleging committed delinquent act,2 clerk Court3 generally assign one seven masters.4 ensuing unrecorded call witnesses rules applicable criminal cases. could offer defense. At evidence, usually announce contemplated recommendations. minority where favored minor's position, whereupon try novo.5 5 1972, Baltimore City Master concluded, failed show beyond reasonable doubt minor, Anderson, assaulted robbed woman. His recommendation reflected conclusion. exceptions. Anderson responded motion dismiss notice contending provision novo violated Clause. ruled outside scope He violate Anderson's right twice put and, basis, granted dismiss. same similarly situated including several later initiated 6 appealed Special Appeals reversed. re 20 Md.App. 31, 315 A.2d 540 (1974). That assumed, purposes decision, attached commencement initial master. held, however: 7 "[T]here reason simply first phase continues consideration Whether absence accepts modifies them remands them, whether, when filed, hears himself novo, there merely continuance jeopardy. other words, thereto attaching, terminate upon valid master." Id., 47, A.2d, 549 (footnotes omitted; emphasis added). 8 On concluded exposure 9 affirmed, although rationale different intermediate appellate 272 Md. 85, 321 516 "a places jeopardy." Central holding court's serve ministerial assistants judges; authorized report findings, make entrusted none judicial State, sine qua non office binding judgment.6 10 November 1974, five months Appeals' nine juveniles sought federal habeas corpus relief, masters' favorable their rights These also future operation 908(e). sole constitutional complaint was, again, convened matter, we now review. 11 Before reviewing petitions act, Legislature enacted legislation which, statutory proceedings. doing so, slightly previously operative new required hearings recorded conclusion, submit written fact, conclusions law, Either elect legislature specified "proposals causes constitute orders Accordingly, could, conduct or, agreed, record. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. 3-813 (Supp.1977). 12 within enactment 1, 1975 effective date, single-judge 908.e Aldridge Dean, 395 1161 (Md.1975). view, soon offered subject place time. six petitioners already hearing. remaining three, yet been dismissed prejudice being premature. 13 decision supra, Appeals, exercise rulemaking power, promulgated rule, currently force, govern proceedings.7 differs statute significant aspects. First, emphasize nonfinal nature conclusions, stresses all "findings, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS OR ORDERS" ARE ONLY PROPOSED. Second, longer secure unfavorable proposals y still "such [relevant] raise objection."8 retains modify remand supplement own object.9 14 Thus, direct product desire continue using meet heavy burden caseloads while time assuring guarantee double end, permits recording officer constitution, see 104-105, 526-27, statute, 3-813, 15 After date plaintiffs amended bring scope. They continued challenge procedure, Other intervened ongoing work definition class. Their complaints intervention likewise rested 16 certified Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 23(b)(2) consist involved nondelinquency. order. constitutes [the juvenile] must again marshal whatever resources given opportunity obtain conviction." 1369 (Md.1977). officials10 17 We noted probable solely determine whether prohibits findings.11 434 963, 501, 54 449 (1977). II 18 general principles governing well established. 19 "A offense. Benton Maryland, 784, 89 2056, 23 707. protection unequivocally acquittal. public interest finality judgments strong acquitted retried 'the acquittal egregiously erroneous foundation.' innocence confirmed judgment, Constitution conclusively presumes unfair. "Because attaches becomes final, embraces defendant's 'valued have completed particular tribunal.' Consequently, prosecutor entitled one, trial." Arizona Washington, 497, 503-505, 824, 829, 55 717 (1978) omitted). 21 application principles, narrow question here12 911,13 thereby "require[s] trial" hold not. 22 Importantly, impinge central purpose "of successive trials" bar "the [from] another supply muster proceeding." Burks 11, 2141, 2147, (1978). crack." closed, received consent minor. precludes "enhanc[ing] convicted," 504, S.Ct., 829 guilt series persons groups determinations. Appellees contend factfinders: support contention point parents sometimes consider judge" verdict." Within limits jury rights, McKeiver Pennsylvania, 403 528, 91 1976, 29 647 (1971), constraints, parties, designate empower adjudicator. And here conferred roles regardless initially presence proposals.14 24 Finally, 199 (1957). Indeed, conducts "hearing record," "hearing" oral briefs. But participation appearance, Green. 25 effort characterize trials purposes, rely decisions Court, 346 (1975), (1975).15 26 Breed, when, adjudicatory charge conduct, transferred adult court, tried, convicted conduct. All conceded contended, did attach proceeding, culminated deprivation liberty. rejected somehow "continued" therefore inapplicable scheme, "trial." 27 stress language Jenkins "[I]t enough some sort, devoted resolution factual issues, going elements offense charged, reversal remand. Even [To so] Clause." U.S., 370, 1013 (emphasis Although correctly identified reference three isolated sentences, any read light our subsequent 65 Scott requiring making barred Clause, follow previous ending acquittal; conviction because insufficient mistrial ruling prompted "manifest necessity," terminating follows occurrences. Furthermore, fully judgment. Nothing comparable occurs proceeding. See n. 15, supra. 30 objection constraints 31 reverse consistent opinion. 32 ordered. 33 MARSHALL, whom BRENNAN POWELL join, dissenting. 34 who, charges found nondelinquent "master." Because labeled "proposed," today allows effect "judge," convict juvenile. odds ith Due Process 707 (1969), specifically apply (1975). 35 majority purport retreat Breed. Yet reaches result countenance adult, defendants just surely defendant, appeal. addition Maryland's raises serious due process questions heard cold For reasons, I dissent. 36 While inquiry attached, Crist Bretz, 32-33, 2156, 2159, (1978); Serfass 377, 388, 1055, 1062, 265 agree ante, 215 12. "at whose object [a acts law." 529, 1785. clearly Under full "adjudicatory hearing," "to allegations true." 914(a); 3-801(b) (Supp.1977); 914(f).1 introduces seeks determination rest. 389, 1063. 51-52, 2168-2169 (POWELL, J., dissenting). 37 My disagreement lies misapplication well-settled attached. As itself recognizes, 214, "unequivocally acquittal," 503, Just unequivocally, prevents Kepner 195 100, 797, 49 L.Ed. 114 (1904). end "defendant's valued tribunal," absent " 'manifest necessity' protected Wade Hunter, 336 684, 689-690, 69 834, 837, 93 974 (1949), quoting Perez, 579, Wheat. 580, 165 (1824); 214-215. 38 designed underlying most fundamental protect governmental harassment oppression easily arise massed confrontation individual. 187, 223, serves preclude having 'another proceeding' "; avoid fact innocent, decisionmaker; subjecting Ante, touchstones law evaluated. 39 rejecting chief argument—that master—the primarily ignoring undisputed commits factfinding function. Admittedly, somewhat difficult classify into customary pigeonholes analysis, precisely engaged novel redefinition functions quasi-criminal intentionally Clause.2 is, course, free "master," fragile instrument substantive prohibitions evaded formal designations fail correspond actual performed. 40 Viewing terms relative functions, think appropriate analogy between unusually broad powers us, unequivocal facts, proved case, overturn findings.3 By functional considerations, circumvent protections mere change definitions finality. thus linchpin formalism belies insistence "courts eschew 'label[s]-of-convenience proceedings,' Gault [387 1], 50, 87 [1428], 1455 [18 527 (1967)], candidly appraised,' [id.,] 21, 1440." 41 (1) describes constitution 212. inaccurate, say "authorized" factfinder.4 referee deciding evidentiary creating Rather, directs disposition (which hearing), "transmit together respect disposition." 911(b).5 contemplates function emphasized neither nor requires "judge" record, listen tape otherwise expose presented expressly recognizes "based on" 911(d). instance; accepted independent (2) (1904), prohibited Philippines reversing verdict rendered entering guilty.6 Government argued controlling Spanish "[t]he original unitary continuous thing, complete until pronounced judgment." Brief O.T. 1903, 244, p. 39. American appealing entered trier facts. holding, Holmes' "continuing jeopardy" argument, 134-137, 806-807 (dissenting opinion), consistently refused adopt, see, e. g., Wilson, 332, 352, 1013, 1026, 232 position bears uncomfortable resemblance.7 45 are, differences instant case. instance apparently party, whereas repeatedly emphasized, "acquittal" n t necessarily determined form Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 564, 571, 97 1349, 1353, 51 642 (1977); 336, 1018; Sisson, 399 267, 270, 90 2117, 2119, 608 (1970). appealed, acquittal, followed bars 130, 804. Here, formally adjudication, respects equivalent acquittal: plenary resolution, correct not, charged." 1355. exception engenders 46 simple expedient changing performed judges levels decision. might structuring justice layers exhausted last appeal.8 proliferation defendant—juvenile adult—must defend kind evil forbid. rationale, seemingly long takes care define lower decisionmaking "proposed" "tentative" nature, commingling traditional functions. B 47 regarded acquittals protects go "particular tribunal" justifying termination 837. part ensure government able bolster arguments, believes persuaded tribunal. 829-830, 14. structured give type opportunity, disagrees rulings fact. 48 recognized formal, testify cross-examined; defense; counsel remain silent. Presentation keyed reactions attitudes presiding acts, tribunal." justifiably expect announces favor, will final. tried never, "completed" ignored him. endemic interrupted ensures cannot get benefit fact's reaction evidence. poses substantial guilty, decisionmaker guilt, Ashe Swenson, 397 436, 446, 1189, 1195, 469 Unless justified necessity"—not here—the condemns system. wrote 187-188, "underlying idea" 50 "is should allowed repeated attempts individual offense, expense compelling possibility guilty." conclude Rule, insofar aside facts violates 52 accurately states, issue raised focused parties' briefs amicus, system, problems, ultimate actually trial.9 reach issue, believing properly here.10 2705, 2707 14, 2708. important ones like today; systems unconstitutional entirely open courts, find 53 Winship, 1068, 368 (1970), crime proof doubt, prosecuted Winship suggests reliable procedures used reasonable-doubt emphasized: 'To experienced lawyers commonplace outcome lawsuit—and hence vindication legal rights—depends often how appraises disputed construction .. Thus assume importance great validity applied.' Wingo Wedding, 418 461, 474, 94 2842, 2850, 879 (1974), Speiser Randall, 357 513, 520, 1332, 1338, 1460 (1958). Over years ago, Holiday Johnston, 313 342, 61 1015, 85 1392 (1941), live witnesses. petition, Judge utilize Commissioner recommended law. prisoner reasoning went many determinations rest: 56 "One essential crucial weighing appraising testimony. appraisal truth prisoner's testimony commissioner facts." 1018. Four Terms adhered successor district personally disapproved practice referring masters, listening electronic substitute observing evaluate credibility. 58 arose context demonstrating Constitution. posed threshold guilty considerations least much force. need achieving particularly credibility, exists fortiori doubt. 59 courts Brown, 625, 632-633, 284 441, 444-445 self-evident structure large part, assess credibility replicated essentially capacity record; amicus cogently notes, "[t]rials-by-transcript never evidence."11 splitting 60 answer problem material finding. place, supplementation stymie efforts guilty. 911(c). importantly, reopen judge—in decided sort constitutionality forcing choice questionable best. Cf. Jackson, 390 570, 88 1209, 138 (1968); North Carolina Pearce, 711, 2072, 656 (1969). III current pass mean idea specially trained selected personnel adjudications, unwise. Using adjudicate common save scarce aid goals ensuring decisionmakers familiarity special problems dispositions. way implementing concept jeopardizing juveniles. endowing adjudications means, What circumstances country fall below minimum standards 62 908(e) causes. treated statutes. defines statute. statutes collected McCarthy, Delinquency Dispositions Standards: Consequences Change Rationale, N.Y.U.L.Rev. 1093 official name Circuit City, Division Causes. 5,345 conducted 5,098 masters. 247 80 "exceptions," matters. recorded. When want question, Epps 419 809, denied certiorari, 1000, 2399, 667 promulgation, numbered 910. recent nonsubstantive amendments recodification, designation, referred throughout juvenile, entirety, provides: "a. Authority "1. Detention Shelter Care. detention shelter 912 (Detention Care) immediate requested party. "2. Matters. waiver petition. "b. Report "Within ten days shall copy served each 306 (Service Pleadings Papers). "c. Review Exceptions Filed. "Any orders. writing, specify items excepts, "Upon prompt scheduled An excepting considers relevant objection. limited taken. "d. Absence Exceptions. "In timely proper adopted them. may, motion, schedule Action section taken expiration exceptions." Defendants, appellants Attorney operations Attorney's Office Clerk contend, appellees' suit abstention doctrine Younger Harris, 401 37, 746, 669 (1971). circumstances, inclined examine sponte. Ohio Bureau Employment Services Hodory, 431 471, 477-480, 1898, 1904, 513 (1977) ("If voluntarily chooses forum, comity demand force back system"). mootness Fields, intervening plaintiffs, named plaintiff controversy State. withdrawn securing ruling, other, announced withdrew respecting Fields. Nevertheless, outset Fields' intervene F.Supp., 1362. Sosna Iowa, 393, 553, 532 action, intervenors, deprive certify accordingly, presently unnamed members Sosna, observed: "There involving moot reasonably expected certification motion. instances, said 'relate back' depend especially reality evade review." 402 559. Here rapidity creates perhaps appearing thereafter, "before motion." Ibid. likely arise, heed strictly requirement 23(c)(1) "[a]s practicable maintained." (Emphasis added.) contends Our contrary "We believe too late day potential consequences include stigma inherent liberty years." California reviewed referee, materially different—for analysis attachment jeopardy—from Edgar M., Cal.3d 727, 537 P.2d 406 (1975); Jesse W. Superior 893, 576 963 fix precise attaches. 210-211, decisional governs. 1365. dispute reading resolving challenge. usual guilt. objections guarantees Manila lawyer charged embezzling funds client. "court instance" acquitted. took Philippine Supreme imposed sentence. Act Congress, extended Philippines, conviction. material. "assistant" ngs judges. 115, 121, 133, 801, 806. Brown dissent characterized embracing dangerous finally acquitting notorious criminals." 137, 808. appellate, Government's Trono 521, 292 (1905). unlike preliminary (to analogizes cause, beginning designated charges. adjudicatory: clear contemplation 'adjudicatory hearing' total whereto summonsed [sic ]; whereat sworn, confronted delinquent, examined demeanor observed, assessed transcribed reporter; represented enjoys silent .; marshals [State's] "Conversely, equally frequently ex parte camera, supervising ratifies, rejects prior revision relating 209-210, us indicates character changed ision. earlier excepted nondelinquency, (Md.1975), "parties" consent. Following passage rules, moved moot; denied. example, instance, identification victim bicycle theft. close accuracy witness' identification, uncorroborated, McLean, summarized Record, Petitioner's Exhibit 49, 16. exception, defendant. Constitution, validly delegate 911. statistical proof, convincing be, supposed Appellees' supports interpretation Judge. approved 1364 (Md.1977) (three-judge court). Moreover, claim—the serving 1967-1975—agreed take perception "it impossible , carries docket himself, independent, meaningful overwhelming thousands [masters'] year With realistically called adviser [T]he conducts, intents blown dispositional phases practical imposes sanctions effectively youngsters freedom." 158187 (Cir.Ct.Balt.City, Juv.Div., Aug. 1973), Judge's ultimately Commission January 1977, spending studying reached conclusion: "[W]ithout bearing responsibility decisions, Master's become, effect, Court." Final Jus ice Governor General Assembly Kepner, technically construing Congress extending certain procedural possession. However, construed incorporate 124, 802, 217 15. explained urged applicable, follows: "Under person sense resort. deemed examining passed 801. plain inconsistent guilty; merits, passing meaning." trials, become "final" amount it. unlikely eventuality, points up fallacy reasoning. Fortunately, damage done Sixth Not offend jury's (whether verdict), Sanges, 144 310, 609, 445 (1892), cited 804, dilute however. Public Defender Amicus Curiae. Dandridge Williams, 475-476, 6, 1153, 1157, 491 (1970) (when "attention issues," appropriate), so. Helvering Gowran, 302 238, 245, 154, 157, 82 224 (1937) (Brandeis, J.). Affirming expanding granted: injunction New York Telephone 159, 166 8, 364, 369, 376 complaints, substance opposition appellants' complaint. Plaintiffs' Memorandum Response Motion Dismiss Record 19; Opposition Dismiss, 29. brief argument: "It logical officers, eventually [S]uch emasculate (1970)." 86. identical illustrates intimate relationship scheme. Curiae 26.

Category: 1