Document: 420 U.S. 332 95 S.Ct. 1013 43 L.Ed.2d 232 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.George J. WILSON, Jr. No. 72—1395. Argued Dec. 9, 1974. Decided Feb. 25, 1975. Syllabus The jury entered a guilty verdict against respondent for federal offense, but on one of respondent's postverdict motions the District Court dismissed indictment ground that delay between offense and prejudiced right to fair trial. Appeals Government's appeal Double Jeopardy Clause barred review Court's ruling. Because ruling was based facts brought out at trial, held it in effect an acquittal. Held: When trial judge rules favor defendant after has been by trier fact, Government may from without contravening Clause. Pp. 335-353. (a) That protects appeals only where there is danger subjecting second same hence such protection does not attach judge's correction error law which would grant prosecution new or subject multiple prosecutions. 339-353. (b) Here could be disposed him behest. If he prevails appeal, matter will become final, permitted bring whereas if loses, case must return disposition his remaining motions. P. 353. 492 F.2d 1345, reversed remanded. Andrew L. Frey, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Philip D. Lauer, Easton, Pa., respondent. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion Court. 1 Respondent George Wilson, Jr., tried Eastern Pennsylvania converting union funds own use, violation § 501(c) Labor-Management Reporting Disclosure Act 1959, 73 Stat. 536, 29 U.S.C. 501(c). verdict, motion indictment. court ruled had defendant, dismissal called under this decision United States v. Marion, 404 307, 92 455, 30 468 (1971). sought Third Circuit, 1345 (1973). We granted certiorari consider applicability rulings court. 417 908, 94 2603, 41 211 (1974). reverse. 2 * In April 1968 FBI began investigation business manager Local 367 International Brotherhood Electrical Workers. focused Wilson's suspected conversion 1966 $1,233.15 pay part expenses daughter's wedding reception. payment apparently made check drawn endorsed treasurer president local union. contended authorized two officials make behalf did know bill reception paid funds. June 1970 completed its reported Organized Crime Strike Force Attorney's Office.1 There rested some 16 months until, three days prior running statute limitations, indicted illegal 3 Wilson pretrial dismiss filing action denied opportunity His chance mount effective defense impaired, argued, because officers who signed were unavailable testify. One died 1968, other suffering terminal illness. After hearing, motion, proceeded returned guilty, filed various including arrest judgment, judgment acquittal, 4 earlier preindictment unreasonable substantially defendant's 1970, noted, so loss testimony attributed delay. president, however, during period since witness explain circumstances check, violated Fifth Amendment This Marion claim unnecessary rule 5 pursuant Criminal Act, 18 3731, order, citing our Sisson, 399 267, 90 2117, 26 608 (1970). On petition rehearing, wrote reasoned relied finding prejudice delay, Under Clause, held, constitutionally even though rendered guilty. II 6 argues read too broadly mischaracterized terming view, constitutional restriction governmental intended solely protect exposing trials, shield every determination favorable appellate review. Since necessary fact should any adverse alternative, urges bar order acquittal therefore appealable. cases prohibits discharging when, as here, outside we agree with attaches have no occasion determine whether actually 'acquittal' characterized otherwise. A. 7 early take criminal express statutory authority. Sanges, 144 310, 12 609, 36 L.Ed. 445 (1892). Not reaching underlying issue, general provisions Judiciary 1891, 827, 828, sufficiently explicit overcome common-law State sue writ unless legislature expressly right. U.S., 318, 322—323, 612, 613. 8 Fifteen years later, Congress passed first conferred jurisdiction limited circumstances. 34 1246. dismissing arresting 'the invalidity, construction upon founded,' sustaining special plea bar, when put jeopardy.2 construed accordance meaning terms employed, governing conditions became highly technical.3 number occasions struggle vagaries Act;4 last these unhappy efforts, concluded 'a failure . most unruly child improved age.' S.Ct., 2139. 9 finally replaced broaden rights.5 While language dispositive, legislative history makes clear remove all barriers allow whenever Constitution permit. 10 A proposed Department 'from decision, district information terminating more counts, except (would) lie acquittal.' S. 3132; H.R. 14588. Senate Report indicated Committee extend rights limits. S.Rep.No.91—1296, p. Both report wording bill, howeverSuggested thought judgement judge. Id., 2, 8—12. At time, appears permit terminated prosecution, came midst 11. 11 Conference important changes although offered explanation them. H.R.Conf.Rep.No.91—1768, 21 omitted purporting 'terminating defendant,' removed phrase place provision, substituted ultimately enacted, shall double jeopardy clause further prosecution.' These are consistent Committee's desire authorize permissible, they suggest decided rely courts define boundaries rather than create scheme might respects narrower broader allow. light background seems inescapable determined avoid creating nonconstitutional bars appeal. appealable Constitution. B 13 restrictions long limitations unusual Even few relevant cases, discussion question brief. Now apply States, see Benton Maryland, 395 784, 89 2056, 23 707 (1969), closer look policies precisely cases. 14 As documented elsewhere, idea very old. See Bartkus Illinois, 359 121, 151—155, 79 676, 684 (1959) (Black, J., dissenting); Jenkins, 490 868, 870—873 (CA2 1973). development principle can traced through variety sources ranging legal maxims casual references contemporary commentary. Although form breadth prohibition varied widely, premise generally twice punished offense. Sigler, 2—16 (1969).6 Writing 17th century, Lord Coke described afforded function related pleas: Autrefois acquit, autrefois convict, pardon. With exceptions, pleas raised prove already convicted crime. E. Coke, Institutes 212—213 (6th ed. 1680). Blackstone later used ancient term 'jeopardy' characterizing acquit convict. principle, wrote, 'universal maxim common England, man into life once offense.' W. Blackstone, Commentaries*335—336. 15 adoption sheds what drafters Blackstone's maxim' mean applied country. time First Congress, provision embodying anything resembling jeopardy.7 course their ratification proceedings, suggested included among amendments Federal Constitution.8 Apparently attempting accommodate suggestions, James Madison added ban version Bill Rights presented House Representatives 1789. Madison's read: 'No person subject, impeachment, punishment offence.' Annals Cong. 434 (1789). Several members challenged misconstrued prevent seeking conviction. 753. supporters assured doubters merely stated current law, defendants implicit stood.9 survived House, Senate, proposal rejected traditional employing familiar concept 'jeopardy.' S.Jour., 1st Cong., Sess., 71, 77 (1820 ed.). Senate's choice tracked statement principles convict adopted approved both Houses apparent dissension. 87—88; H.R.Jour. 121 (1826 debates over Rights, suggestion imposed prosecution. mentioned versions Maryland's 'there fact,' equally defense. Nor implied state appeals. late 18th century King certain circumstances,10 It either conviction seek pleas. origins thus suggests directed threat prosecutions, appeals, least those require C 17 construing reinforce view guarantee. North Carolina Pearce, 711, 2072, 656 observed provides protections: 'It And punishments 717, 2076. 19 interests protections quite similar. particular crime, fairness finality subjected possibility being again sentenced Ex parte Lange, Wall. 163, 872 (1874); re Nielsen, 131 176, 672, 33 118 (1889). acquitted guarantees repeated attempts him, 'thereby embarrassment, expense ordeal compelling live continuing anxiety insecurity, well enhancing innocent found guilty.' Green 355 184, 187—188, 78 221, 223, 199, 204 (1957). 20 policy avoiding trials regarded exceptions grudgingly allowed. Initially, requested defendant. Gibert, 25 F.Cas. 1287 (No. 15,204) (CCD Mass.1834) (Story, J.). until 1896 conviction, enjoyed similar Ball, 163 662, 1192, 300.11 Following policy, retry mistrial manifest necessity act, ends public justice otherwise defeated.' Perez, Wheat. 579, 580, 165 (1824).12 By contrast, successive offended.13 situations favoring appealed Government. 1907 example, serious challenge orders See, e.g., Bramblett, 348 503, 75 504, 99 594 (1955); Green, 350 415, 76 522, 100 494 (1956); Pratt 70 App.D.C. 7, 11, 102 275, 279 (1939). reversal reinstate jury's offend 22 Similarly, settled court's reversing ordered discharged. Forman 361 416, 426, 80 481, 487, 412, 419 (1960). operated deprive review, 'tantamount hands jury, Court.' Ibid. also Shotwell Mfg. Co., 233, 243, 245, 251, 234, 240 difficult why different simply gotten Judge Appeals, degree evidence making obviously enhances likelihood subjects anxiety, legitimate benefit corrected before fact.14 24 relatively comment directly nonetheless areas, focusing controlling principle. addressed supra. murder, defective, defective indictment, sufficient subsequent 669, 1192. 'The final,' 'and reviewed, otherwise, putting jeopardy, thereby violating constitution.' 671, 1195. Eight faced Kepner 195 100, 797, 49 114 (1904),15 essence de novo bench Court, relying Ball case, 'to try followed judgment.' 133, 806. Permitting exposed 27 contends stand proposition key invoking point explained primarily expose risk finder first. And, technically involved single proceeding, practice equivalent separate evil saw procedure plainly prosecution:16 28 instance, having guilt innocence accused, guilty; merits, court, seeks comfort recent Fong Foo 369 141, 82 629 (1962), too, reflects limiting trials. interrupted verdicts defendants. erred directing offended 'when set aside petitioners 143, 672. noted retrial sometimes permissible declared entered, foreclosed Finally, places great weight He claims Sisson extends face 31 arose former here direct refusing submit induction, termed 'arrest judgment,' sincere opposition war Vietnam outweighed country's need draft him. theory within 'arresting judgment' Act. 'motion bar' want jurisdiction. 32 plurality four Justices, Harlan gave reasons conclusion judgment. First, definition went beyond record. drafted 'well-defined meaning' incorporate introduced Second, failed satisfy requirement 'for insufficiency indictment.' issue sincerity Sisson's beliefs indictment; accordingly, 'insufficient' statute, charge allege themselves established availability privilege. Part II—C opinion, Black provided majority third reason concluding judgment: 'bottomed factual conclusions instead basis adduced trial,' 'rendered 288, 2129. ruling, indistinguishable hypothetical instruction incorporating recognized instructed acquitted, pointed out, contemplate how erroneous instructions. Nor, added, taken consistently latter following passage: 'Quite apart is, course, 'not (the defendant) constitution. country 1195, 300, 303 (1896).' 289 290, 35 passage meant provide alternative holding not. essence, rests perceives syllogism portion opinion: (1) acquittal; (2) cannot offending Clause; thus, (3) shielded law. constrained disagree. natural reading reference itself.17 Appeal precluded Constitution; actual statute. was, footnote quoted passage, jurisdictional dismissal, retried. 290 n. 18, 2117.18 Accordingly, find authority unappealable D 37 seriously reviewable prosecution's motion,19 support commentators Holmes dissent supra.20 accepted forbids independent once.' 134, But treated sides exhausted claimed errors regardless 38 system permitting symmetry recommend release benefited instructions evidentiary unduly position past, continue militate Granting broad prosecutor persuade first; re-examine weaknesses presentation strengthen second; disserve interest acquittal.21 interests, do Correction stage harassment traditionally associated conclude afoul III 39 Applying present straightforward task. Wilson. acted indeed go back reverse remand merits 40 Reversed DOUGLAS, whom BRENNAN joins, dissenting. 42 use 367, IBEW, served financial secretary. caused expended undisputed officers, Brinker Schaefer, forwarded hotel satisfaction debts incurred account November 1966. An October 1971, limitations. neither signatories available testify case. 1968; Schaefer terminally ill. Due Process Amendment. 468. Specifically, argued unavailability signatories, hearings, motion. 44 local's attorney, Burke, s1,000 deposit cover expenses. balance mailed home address. Five arrived. usual issuance completion voucher recording secretary, signifying approval expenditure, preparation signature treasurer. given office position, elected offices 45 testified never anyone reimbursed Burke personally $1,000 deposit. acknowledge, told 1966, shortly reached hotel, paid. 46 close renewed withheld receiving verdict. 47 then unreasonably delayed 1970. witness. (Brinker while progress.) Since, presence signer voucher, 'testimony utmost importance deprived Schaefer's testimony. 48 arguing erroneous. 608, developed led 'an post-verdict acquittal,' id., relating case,' 19, 2130, reaffirmed Jorn, 400 470, 478 91 547, 553, 543, 552. 50 reviewed missing (terminally ill) probably added. What asked judges independently bearing reach conclusion. said dictum impact law: (Emphasis supplied.) 51 114, embezzling nonjury Philippines. took Supreme Philippines, record reversed, entry court.* considered Philippine Ball. accordingly held: 52 then, includes duly .. peril punishment, 130, 805. 53 629, promising 'long complicated,' prosecutorial improprieties lack credibility witnesses. power it. 'thought, reason, egregiously foundation,' above, deemed controlling. 54 Foo, issues. Thus speedy reviewable, parcel process weighing Therefore affirm below. 1969. 1346. agent conducted communicated representatives Office about December App. 28. Significantly, 'in defendant.' indicates ensure conflict Cong.Rec. 2749—2762, 2819. amended several times, render simpler. significant change 1942 amendment, 56 271, dismissals prosecutions information. granting suppress seized property. 237. Weller, 401 254, 602, (1971); (1970); Mersky, 431, 459, 423 (1960); Borden 308 188, 60 182, 84 181 Title Omnibus Control Pub.L. 91—644, 1890. Expressions English Year Books, 15th begun connection Kirk, 'Jeopardy' During Period U.Pa.L.Rev. 602 (1934). I, Art. XVI, New Hampshire's 1784 liable tried, crime contained prohibition, F. Thorpe, Constitutions 2455 (1909). Among York sent declaration 'That ought limb, offence; nor, Elliott, Debates 328 (1876). borrowed heavily formulation. Maryland arise government land naval forces.' supra, 550. From brief debate agreed Representative Sherman commented: 'If (defendant) time; first, thing appear aside, entitled second, certainly him.' 753 appeared record, obtained fraud treachery. M. Friedland, 287 (1969). exception 'one trial' conclusory theories waives appealing continues becomes 189, 224, 199 Tateo, 377 463, 465—466, 1587, 448 (1964), practical justification fairer emphasized scope adding: 'To sure, (to declare retrial) greatest caution, urgent circumstances, plain obvious causes.' Wheat., 580. occasions, 'prohibits punishing twice, punish criminally, Helvering Mitchell, 391, 399, 58 630, 633, 917, 921 (1938). Lot Emerald Cut Stones 409 232, 235—236, 93 489, 492, 438, 442 (1972); Stroud 251 15, 50, 51, 64 103, 110 (1919); cf. 479, 554, 553 Learned Hand Zisblatt, 172 740, 743 (CA2), 336 934, 69 750, 1093 (1949). 'So remains datum, attaching proper consequences trench prohibition.' based, Constitution, extended White necessarily control Amendment, 197, 228, accept Kepper correctly principles. factfinding Palko Connecticut, 302 319, 322 323, 149, 150, (1937). interpretation reliance explain. rationale particularly turns result Sisson. point; quotation addition, constitutionalize distinctions anticipated eliminate. appealable, plagued 'limitations (the) awkward (Criminal Appeals) Act,' 308, Worse still, task exploring pleading existed now singularly inappropriate decide point. briefed parties, resolution manner marked deserving plenary treatment. advanced argument, cautiously, companion 358, 1006, 250, Brief 73—1513, O.T.1974, pp. 24—25, 16. Mayers & Yarbrough, Bis Vexari: Trials Successive Prosecutions, 74 Harv.L.Rev. 1, 8—15 Miller, Cases, Yale L.J. 486 (1927). Ashe Swenson, 397 436, 446—447, 1189, 1195—1196, 469, 484 455 1200, 1202 (Brennan, concurring); 187, 221; Comment, Dismissals, Tex.L.Rev. 303, 340—342 Technically, construing, administration Philippines identical language. one, above-quoted

Category: 0