Document: 424 U.S. 600 96 S.Ct. 1075 47 L.Ed.2d 267 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Nathan George DINITZ. No. 74-928. Argued Dec. 2, 1975. Decided March 8, 1976. Syllabus For repeated misconduct by respondent's counsel (Wagner) during the opening-statement period in criminal trial, trial judge expelled Wagner and asked co-counsel (Meldon) if he was prepared to proceed with trial. Upon being advised that Meldon had not discussed case witnesses, gave him until next morning prepare. At time respondent wanted try case. After set forth alternatives of (1) a delay pending appellate review propriety Wagner's expulsion, (2) continuation as main counsel, or (3) declaring mistrial permit obtain other made motion for mistrial, which granted. Before his second filed on double jeopardy grounds dismiss indictment, denied. Respondent represented himself at resulted conviction. The Court Appeals reversed, holding exclusion judge's questioning left "no choice" but request mistrial; under circumstances could be said have voluntarily relinquished right before first jury; Double Jeopardy Clause barred because there been no manifest necessity expulsion. Held: does bar retrial. Pp. 606-612. (a) Though this has held whether can new after declared without defendant's depends "there is (mistrial), ends public justice would otherwise defeated," United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579, 580, 6 L.Ed. 165, different considerations when instance defendant, whose ordinarily removes any barrier reprosecution even necessitated prosecutorial judicial error. 606-618. (b) erred manifest-necessity standard should applied defendant mistrial. bars retrials where "bad-faith conduct prosecutor," Jorn, 400 470, 485, 91 547, 557, 27 543, 556 (plurality opinion), threatens "(h)arassment an accused successive prosecutions declaration so afford prosecution more favorable opportunity convict" Downum States, 372 734, 736, 83 1033, 1034, 10 100, here contention record showing expulsion bad faith goad into requesting prejudice acquittal prospects. 608-611. 504 F.2d 854, reversed remanded. John P. Rupp, Washington, D. C., petitioner. Fletcher N. Baldwin, Jr., Gainesville, Fla., respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 question Fifth Amendment violated retrial original ended granted request. 2 * respondent, Nathan Dinitz, arrested December 1972, following return indictment charging conspiracy distribute LSD distribution controlled substance violation 84 Stat. 1260, 1265, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. On day arrest, retained lawyer named Jeffrey represent him. appeared arraignment, numerous pretrial motions behalf, completely responsible preparation shortly Some five days scheduled begin, another lawyer, Maurice Wagner, defense. admitted practice District Northern Florida, court permitted appear pro hac vice. In addition professor law University also behalf.1 3 jury selected sworn February 14, 1973, opening statements began afternoon. prosecutor's statement briefly outlined testimony expected undercover agent Steve Cox give regarding purchase from then introducing co-counsel, turned against respondent: 4 "Mr. Wagner: working over it me we given nomenclature, about identifying future, I called Case 5 Reed (Asst. U. S. Attorney): Your Honor, object personal opinions. 'The Court: Objection sustained. purpose summarize facts evidence will show, state issues, Proceed, Wagner. 7 Thank you, Honor. call Incredible Witness." App. 20. 8 prosecutor again objected excused jury. warned did approve behavior cautioned want remind statement. Following initial incident, found necessary twice instruct relate "the you expect admissible evidence." Id., 82. Later statement, started discuss attempt extort money occurred arrest. excused. informed some details extortion assured connect prospective Government witness Cox. But soon became apparent information linking attempt, excluded ordered leave courthouse.2 trial.3 learning o'clock "in quandary hired argue feels needs outside responded "(y)ou are been" stated consider matter "between now 9:00 tomorrow morning." 35. 11 morning, told Baldwin three alternative courses might followed stay recess application expelling counsel. short recess, moved stating that, "full consideration situation explanation him, (the respondent) move best interest." 41. oppose motion. thereupon expressing belief such course serve interest justice. 12 ground violate Constitution. This convicted both counts.4 A divided panel Circuit conviction, constitutional put jeopardy.5 492 53. took view choice 59. basis, concluded ignored treated though objection defendant. Ibid. So viewing case, requiring Wagner.6 rehearing en banc and, vote 8-7, affirmed decision panel.7 854. We certiorari thus presented. 420 1003, 95 1445, 43 761. II 13 protects proceeding multiple punishments same offense.8 See Wilson, 332, 343, 1013, 1021, 232, 241; North Carolina Pearce, 395 711, 717, 89 2072, 2076, 23 656, 664. Underlying safeguard State all its resources power allowed make attempts convict individual alleged offense, thereby subjecting embarrassment, expense ordeal compelling live continuing anxiety insecurity, well enhancing possibility innocent may guilty." Green 355 184, 187-188, 78 221, 223, 199, 204. Where, here, declared, "valued completed particular tribunal" implicated. Wade Hunter, 336 684, 689, 69 834, 837, 93 974, 978; 484-485, 556-557, opinion); 102. 14 Since Story's 1824 consent defeated." Illinois Somerville, 410 458, 461, 1066, 1069, 35 425, 429; supra, 481, 555, 554; Gori 367 364, 368-369, 81 1523, 1526, 901, 904-905; 689-690, Simmons 142 148, 153-154, 171, 172, 968, 970, 971. Different obtain, however, request.9 reasons distinction were plurality Jorn case: 15 "If go tribunal valued, because, independent threat bad-faith prosecutor, significant take occur thought warrant Thus, develop attributable overreaching, assumed remove reprosecution, absence motion, Perez doctrine stands command judges foreclose option scrupulous exercise discretion leads conclusion served proceedings. 16 Wheat., 166." U.S., (footnote omitted). 17 between mistrials Sua sponte wholly consistent protections Clause. Even error prejudices prospects securing acquittal, nonetheless desire "to perhaps, end dispute acquittal." 484, 556. Our prior decisions recognize pursue sua evident seriously little completing obtaining verdict reasonably conclude tainted result conviction lengthy appeal reversal secured, prosecution. circumstances, objectives unlike interests avoidance anxiety, expense, occasioned prosecutions. 18 viewed permits sought resting waiver theory. concluded, therefore, "something substantial than Hobson's required "be jury."10 F.2d, imputed action excluding accept mistrial." traditional concepts relevance must determine response n. 11, 556; Jamison, 164 U.S.App.D.C. 300, 305-306, 505 407, 412-413. generally face "Hobson's giving up prejudicial important consideration, purposes Clause, retain primary control event error.11 19 Appeals' determination undermines rather furthers severely immediate preferable prospect probable appeal, later Yet decision, effect, instructs reject most meritorious require, instead, despite legitimate claim error.12 follows course, present obstacle aside appeal. Ball, 163 662, 1192, 41 300.13 20 protect governmental actions intended provoke requests subject defendants burdens imposed It S.Ct., L.Ed.2d, 369, 905; 489, 559, 558 (Stewart, J., dissenting); cf. 692, 838, L.Ed., 979. banishment proceedings done order acquittal. As noted, "was guilty improper conduct" "may justified disciplinary action," 60-61. accepting court's overreacted courtroom, Ibid., suggest, contended, show motivated undertaken harass respondent.14 22 Under these hold finding jeopardy. Accordingly, judgment us remanded further opinion. ordered. 24 Judgment reversed. 25 STEVENS part 26 Chief BURGER, concurring. concur fully STEWART's add observation only emphasize what plainly implicit opinion, i. e., plenary particularly relation addressing 28 An narrow scope. presented, easier jurors understand follow, parts whole; occasion argument. To cannot supported proof is, relates elements professional misconduct. Moreover, fundamentally unfair opposing party allow attorney, standing prestige inherent officer court, susceptible influence reaching verdict. 29 duty, integrity prompt affirmative stop Here unprofessional Per se contemptuous defied explicit order. 30 Far "overreacting" my view, exercised great restraint citing contempt there.* 31 BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL concurs, dissenting. 32 Court's premise directed consent. agree analysis, not, defense deprived Dinitz's consensual character." 53, 59 (1974). Therefore rule "a reprosecution," 543 (1971) inapplicable. expressed opinions Appeals, extraordinary alone, (respondent's) forward, away 'valued tribunal.' " 854-855 "(i)n . (the) affect ability continue say actions." 61. affirm. arguments law. Shortly arrest someone telephoned $2,000 sure never came court. FBI agents trap catch caller, unidentified man got "bait envelope." During discussion incident bench, claimed description fit Cox, credibility chief placed doubt. person taking envelope resembled When they arrived, seen talked agents. camera who picked envelope" containing fake bore resemblance Agent examined role conveyed involved worked third-year student dealt reach claims 54. failed adequate available deal conduct. Among suggested warning cited practices continued, actual citation contempt, filing complaint grievance committee bar, prevent practicing Florida. curiam employed reasoning similar majority. 10, Infra. applicable through Fourteenth Benton Maryland, 784, 2056, 707. Tateo, 377 463, 467, 1587, 1590, 448, 452: Tateo Requested basis comments, doubt successful, retrying him." (Emphasis original.) brief concluded: "In constitute plea jeopardy, start remain made. dicta encompass characterizes "his jeopardy" argues valid meet knowing, intelligent, voluntary Johnson Zerbst, 304 58 1692, 82 1461. approach erroneously treats going forward comparable fails protection burden underlying prohibition concomitant relinquishment implicitly rejected permissibility voluntary, intelligent right. Breed Jones, 421 519, 534, 1779, 1788, 44 346, 358; 343-344, 1021-1023, 242-243; 556-557 466, 1589, 450. dissenting "give rise much reluctance granting mistrials" "(t)he courts society better clear arisen seeks possible based error." 63 (Bell, dissenting). permitting convictions behest clearly indicate "that interests, however defined, do far compel mobilize decisionmaking assure single free harmful 556, 450; 688-689, 836-837, 977-978. indicates representing absence. knew attorney outset learned association conscious obligations account shown here. Report American Bar Association Special Committee Evaluation Disciplinary Enforcement, Problems Recommendations Enforcement 60-66 (Final Draft 1970); Project Standards Criminal Justice, Administration Defense Function, § 7.4, p. 131 (1974 Compilation).

Category: 0