Document: 377 U.S. 463 84 S.Ct. 1587 12 L.Ed.2d 448 UNITED STATES, Appellant,v.Rocco TATEO. No. 328. Argued April 20, 1964. Decided June 8, Miss Beatrice Rosenberg, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Robert Kasanof, New York City, appellee. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case presents question whether a federal criminal defendant who has had his conviction overturned in collateral proceedings on ground that guilty plea entered by him during trial was not voluntary but induced part comments judge, may be tried again same crimes or is protected against such prosecution Double Jeopardy Clause Fifth Amendment. We hold under these circumstances retrial does infringe constitutional protection double jeopardy. 2 On May 15, 1956, appellee, Tateo, and another were brought to before jury five-count indictment charging bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)); kidnaping connection with 2113(e)); taking carrying away money 2113(b)); receiving possessing stolen 2113(c)); conspiracy 371) commit some substantive offenses. fourth day trial, judge informed Tateo's counsel if Tateo found he would impose life sentence charge consecutive sentences other charges. Upon being told judge's position advised likelihood great, pleaded guilty, as did codefendant. Thereupon discharged; count dismissed prosecution's consent; sentenced total 22 years 6 months imprisonment counts. 3 In later proceeding 28 2255, district (Judge Weinfeld) granted motion set aside judgment new determining cumulative impact testimony, expressed views punishment, strong advice given rendered it doubtful possessed freedom will necessary guilty. 214 F.Supp. 560. 4 After reindicted charge, third Tyler) four charges which earlier motions defense, Judge Tyler both count, now abandoned Government, He reasoned that, since neither genuine consent nor an 'exceptional circumstance' underlay termination first no 'waiver' jeopardy claim been made Government precluded from retrying him. 216 850. The appealed, accord 18 3731, permits direct appeal this Court decision District sustaining bar put noted probable jurisdiction, 375 877, 148, 11 109. For reasons below, we reverse 5 Amendment provides 'person (shall) subject offence twice limb * *.' principle provision preclude Government's whose because error leading well-established our jurisprudence. respect differ practice obtaining England. rule country explicitly stated United States v. Ball, 163 662, 671—672, 16 1192, 1195, 41 L.Ed. 300, defendants after original defective. It followed variety circumstances; see, e.g., Stroud States, 251 40 50, 64 103, (after reversed confession error); Bryan 338 552, 70 317, 94 335 insufficient evidence); Forman 361 416, 80 481, 412 instructions jury).1 That defendant's rather than attack irrelevant purposes, see Robinson 144 F.2d 392, 396, 397, aff'd ground, 324 282, 65 666, 89 944. Courts are empowered grant trials incongruous compel greater relief one proceeds collaterally rights vindicated review. 7 While different theories have advanced support permissibility retrial, importance conceptual abstractions employed explain Ball implications sound administration Justice. Corresponding right accused fair societal interest punishing guilt clear obtained trial. high price indeed society pay every immunity punishment any defect sufficient constitute reversible conviction. From standpoint defendant, at least appellate courts zealous they protecting effects improprieties pretrial stage knew reversal irrevocably beyond reach further prosecution. reality, therefore, serves defendants' well society's interest. underlying purpose permitting much furthered application cases previously decided. 8 contends situation must distinguished jury, involuntary deprived opportunity obtain verdict acquittal. find argument unconvincing. If coerced improperly admitted, deficiency indictment, improper instruction, presumed fairly jury. A less wronged finding unfair failure get all; distinction between two kinds wrongs affords sensible basis differentiation regard retrial.2 Appellee's considerably similar rejected supra. held despite Appeals' determination entitled—because insufficiency evidence—to directed acquittal, direction permissible disposition. 9 Downum 372 734, 83 1033, 10 100, way inconsistent here. There when discharged ready go forward its case, then recognized, however, there mistrial second Perez, Wheat. 579, 165 (jury unable agree); Simmons 142 171, 35 968 (likelihood juror bias). Gori 367 364, 81 1523; 901, sustained declared possible prejudice although acted without wisdom granting doubtful. requested comments, doub successful, barred See U.S., 368, 1526; also 370, 1527 (dissenting DOUGLAS, J.).3 Although good why chose make strange benefit delay challenging conduct.4 conclude falls squarely within reasoning subsequent allowing retry persons convictions overturned. below therefore remanded reinstate so ordered. Judgment instructions. 13 GOLDBERG, whom BLACK DOUGLAS join, dissenting. 14 I affirm Court's holding, 850, last term protects reprosecution. today departs doing substantially weakens guarantee. correctly decided deserves longer accorded today. Rather making real effort distinguish Downum, limits particular facts reaffirms, extends, holding narrow majority 1523, 9011—a which, my view, Downum's more hospitable attitude toward 'policy Bill Rights rare occasions citizen can offense required run gantlet twice.' supra, 373, 1528 (Douglas, J., dissenting).2 comparison rationale those here reveals calls loudly 15 morning th called sides announced ready. selected, sworn, instructed return p.m. When returned asked key witness counts present—a fact discovered prosecutor only noon recess. contended secure attendance deliberate based upon prosecutor's conclusion impaneled likely acquit. Instead, 'jury selected try petitioner sworn served summons arrangements assure presence.' 737, 1035. commenced days later, said: 'At times valued completed tribunal summoned sit subordinated public imperious necessity do so. Wade Hunter, 336 (684), 690, (69 (834), 837—838, 93 974). Differences arisen principle. Brock North Carolina, 344 424 (73 349, 97 456); Green 355 184, 188 (78 221, 223—224, 199). Harassment successive prosecutions declaration afford favorable convict examples attaches. 369 (81 1526—1527, 901). But extreme mark discretion discharge reached exercised 'only very extraordinary striking circumstances,' use words Story Coolidge, 25 Fed.Cas. 622, 623. prohibition 'not punished, jeopardy.' 669 (16 1194, 300).' Id., 736, 1034. 17 'We resolve doubt 'in favor liberty citizen, exercise what unlimited, uncertain, arbitrary judicial discretion." 738, thus could reprosecuted, since, virtue prosecutorial neglect, denied hear decide case. 19 present time sentencing, counsel: 20 '* (If convicted) (intend) give (him) absolute maximum sentence, plus all follow sentence. 21 'If anybody wonders how serve simple, you eligible parole fifteen years; stay jail rest your life.' As result coercion months. 23 almost seven prison, Weinfeld 2255 vacate that: 24 'The choice open appraised statement severely limited. If, right, continued faced, light attitude, imposition kidnapping additional counts, lawyer believed, reason, meant imprisonment.' F.Supp., 565—566. 'No matter heinous charged, overwhelming proof appear, hopeless continue violated. His require proceed establish independent evidence should shadow penalty—that persists assertion faces, view Trial intention, pleads prospect reduced term.' 567. 26 realities human nature common experience enveloped coercive force resulting knowledge conveyed circumstances, foreclosed guilty.' 568. 27 thereupon re-indicted retrial. defense dismiss ordered prison just month short 'was availing himself innocence.' 853. Applying '(s) ince constitutionally underpinned here, impermissible.' 852. 29 not, cannot, challenge Weinfeld's Tyler's judge. Nor injury substantial Downum. Each 'valued tribunal,' 684, 689, 69 834, 837, 974; reason oversight neglect; threat 'stay (his) anything, deprivation serious. deny fate, whereas merely effect negligence Moreover, subjected evidence, progress abortive ending. 30 arguments presented and, effect, suggests, unsuccessfully argued pleas then, logically, reprosecution where committed Under decisions Court, non sequitur. country, contrary English practice, retried errors trial—including instructions, rulings admitting confessions, prejudicial conduct prosecutor.3 But, instances, notwithstanding errors, albeit error-free law entitled. consider all. Any experienced aware recognize difference cases. Many juries acquit reve sible committed, many lawyers forego having 31 says '(i)f him.' Ante, 467. completely overlooks unchallenged 'enveloped (the) force' plead To hypothesize results request obscures issue. Here took coercing plea. 32 intimates accepted reprosecutions ultimately coerced. again, decisions, follow. By settled interpretation attach nonjury court begun evidence.4 Thus, guarantee impair interpretation. 33 suggested proceeded appealed reply seems me unanswerable: 'But audacious advise client Federal risk hope review power statutory either Supreme (Gore 357 386, 393, 78 1280, 1405) Appeals (Pependrea 275 325, 329 (C.A.9)).'5 34 final point protect 'the clear'—an prefers 466. With deference, suggest Constitution resolved competing interests individual harassment danger agree Brother dissenting 'to receive absolution crime.' policy twice. arbitrariness rests where, puts it—on Government.' 'resolve citizen." reasons, dissent. 199, undermine practice; holds convicted lesser included charged con icted originally charged. difficult understand treated differently into pleading impaneled. intimation impropriety justifying resulted fear accused, considerations would, course, obtain. dissent (post, p. 474) entirely misconceives thrust argument. expected ask mistrial. Rather, whether, underlain review, again. proscribing mean worth salt forbear requesting even certain system encourage litigants raise objections earliest latest self-evident. words, simple logic compels granted. Such contradict language prevailing opinions Gori. expressly refused permitted situations abused exercises authority help 369, 1526. Here, holds, situations. Note, Jeopardy: Reprosecution Problem, 77 Harv.L.Rev. 1272, 1278—1279 (1964). 300; Harv.L.Rev., 1283. E.g., 100; Cornero Cir., 48 69, 74 A.L.R. 797; compare, Bassing Cady, 208 52 540; Dickerson, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 271 487. Whether correct conclusion, compare Wiley, 278 500; 109 U. Pa.L.Rev. 422 (1961), beside point; dilemma authorities.

Category: 0