Document: 437 U.S. 28 98 S.Ct. 2156 57 L.Ed.2d 24 Roger CRIST, as Warden of the Montana State Penitentiary, Deer Lodge, Montana, et al., Appellants,v.L. R. BRETZ al. No. 76-1200. Argued Nov. 1, 1977. Decided June 14, 1978. Syllabus The federal rule that jeopardy attaches in a jury trial when is empaneled and sworn, reflects protects defendant's interest retaining chosen jury, an integral part Fifth Amendment guarantee against double made applicable to States by Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, statute providing does not attach until first witness sworn cannot constitutionally be applied trial. Pp. 32-38. 546 F.2d 1336, affirmed. Robert S. Keller, Kalispell, Mont., for appellants. W. William Leaphart, Helena, appellee Merrel Cline. Charles F. Moses, Billings, L. Bretz. Kenneth Geller, Washington, D. C., United States, amicus curiae. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 This case involves aspect constitutional being twice put jeopardy. precise issue whether governing time binding on through sworn; provides sworn.1 2 * appellees, Cline2 Bretz, were brought court charges grand larceny, obtaining money property false pretenses, several counts preparing or offering evidence. A was following three-day selection process. Before however, appellees filed motion drawing attention allegation false-pretenses charge defendants' illegal conduct began January 13, 1974.3 Effective 1974, particular relied count information, Mont.Rev.Codes Ann. § 94-1805 (1947), had been repealed. prosecutor moved amend claiming "1974" typographical error, date which alleged violation commenced actually 1973, same larceny count. judge denied prosecutor's information dismissed promptly but unsuccessfully asked Supreme Court writ supervisory control ordering allow amendment. 3 Returning court, prosecution then dismiss entire so new one could filed. That granted, dismissed. filed, charging with pretenses. Both based commencing 1973. Other than change dates, described essentially offense charged earlier defective 4 After second selected Double Jeopardy Clauses Constitutions barred prosecution. denied, began. found guilty count, sentenced terms imprisonment. Court, previously habeas corpus relief, ex rel. Bretz v. Sheriff, 167 Mont. 363, 539 P.2d 1191, affirmed judgment ground under state law attached Cline, 555 724. 5 In meantime, proceeding Federal District again alleging their convictions unconstitutionally obtained because violated Amendments petition, holding violate Constitution. held alternative even if attached, justified, manifest necessity supported dismissal. Cunningham 406 F.Supp. 430 (Mont.).4 6 Appeals Ninth Circuit reversed. 1336. It guarantee, thus upon appellate further there no judge's dismissal c unt, and, accordingly, permissible.5 7 Appellants appealed pursuant U.S.C. 1254(2), seeking review only required recognize that, purposes jeopardy, criminal sworn. We postponed consideration probable jurisdiction sub nom. Crist 982, 1676, 52 376, argued. Thereafter set reargument, 434 980, 603, 54 475, parties address two questions: 8 "1. Is heretofore courts trials mandated? 9 "2. Should this hold Constitution require any trial—state federal, nonjury—until sworn?" II A. 10 unstated premise questions posed reargument "that sworn" "constitutionally mandated," since "the prohibition . [applies] Amendment," standards" must apply equally courts. Benton Maryland, 395 784, 794-795, 89 2056, 2062, 23 707. single dispositive question, therefore, guarantee. 11 Clause stated brief compass: "[N]or shall person subject offence life limb." But deceptively plain language has given rise problems both subtle complex, illustrated less eight cases argued here very Term.6 case, presents straightforward concerning point during defendant deemed have once reached subsequent bring potentially into play. Serfass 420 377, 388, 95 1055, 1062, 43 265; Illinois Somerville, 410 458, 467, 93 1066, 1072, 35 425. 12 derived from English common law, followed then, it now,7 relatively simple conviction acquittal—after complete trial.8 primary purpose served such akin doctrines res judicata collateral estoppel—to preserve finality judgments.9 And clear early years our national history considered limited scope. As Story explained: 13 "[The Clause] mean, [a person] tried time, discharged without giving verdict; for, his limb judicially said jeopardy." J. Story, Commentaries 1781, pp. 659-660 (1833). 14 understanding destined endure. Beginning Court's decision iStates Perez, Wheat. 579, L.Ed. 165, became firmly established end 19th century did culminate acquittal, concept long jurisprudence. Thus Wade Hunter, 336 684, 688, 69 834, 837, 974, able accurately say: "Past decided defendant, before may subjected kind 'jeopardy' bars though discontinued verdict." See also, e. g., Arizona 497, 824, 717. 15 basic reason him terminates verdict perhaps best Green 355 184, 187-188, 78 221, 223, 199: 16 "The underlying idea, deeply ingrained at least Anglo-American system jurisprudence, all its resources power should allowed make repeated attempts convict individual offense, thereby subjecting embarrassment, expense ordeal insecurity, well enhancing possibility innocent he guilty." 17 Although ends inconclusively, might open argument Downum 372 734, 83 1033, 100.11 There prevented whose ended just after testimony taken. necessarily pinpointed stage attaches, understood explicit authority proposition Martin Linen Supply Co., 564, 569, 97 1349, 1353, 51 642; U.S., 265. 18 lies need protect accused jury. supra, "valued right completed tribunal." 689, 837. roots deep historic development justice.12 Throughout ran strong tradition banded together solemn task announcing verdict.13 19 Regardless origin, tribunal" now within protection "right" foundation supra; S.Ct., 425; Jorn, 400 470, 478-480, 484-485, 91 547, 553-554, 556-557, 27 543 (plurality opinion). B 20 follows Montana's view impermissible unless can "at core" Clause. Pointer Texas, 380 400, 406, 85 1065, 1069, 923; Malloy Hogan, 378 11, 84 1489, 1495, 653; Ker California, 374 23, 33, 1623, 1629, 726. asking us not, appellants argue standard more arbitrarily convenience,14 similar lack status requirement unanimous jurors, bind States. Apodaca Oregon, 404, 92 1628, 32 184; Williams Florida, 399 78, 90 1893, 26 446. see Ballew Georgia, 435 1029, 55 234. 21 If simply arbitrary exercise line drawing, persuasive, reasonably concluded provide consistency nonjury trials.15 Indeed, attachment few steps forward backward significance.16 22 settled law. rule, grounded, periphery concerns. Those concerns—the judgments, minimization harassing exposure harrowing experience trial, valued continue jury—have combined produce agree "serves lynchpin jurisprudence." F.2d, 1343. 425, involving application Amendment, "jeopardy 'attached' sworn." Today we explicitly what Somerville assumed: Affirmed. 25 BLACKMUN, concurring. I join opinion, write emphasize fact am content rest result, seems be, ante, 36, solely tribunal," factor mentioned Black, speaking 974 (1949). approach would also support conclusion beginning Schulhofer, Mistrials, 125 U.Pa.L.Rev. 449, 512-514 (1977). interests are involved well: repetitive stress anxiety defendant; continuing embarrassment him; prosecutorial overreaching opening statement. true each these used, too, some focus, where reaches highest plateau, opportunity thereafter increases substantially, possible sustained. 29 Chief BURGER, dissenting. 30 "rulemaking" matter, result reasonable one; constitutionalize sworn—so States—that reject. another example how guarantees trivialized insistence mechanical uniformity between practice. is, course, why rules same. period swearing witness, concerns threatened meaningful sense sanguine assumptions about behavior. cautious constitutionalizing every procedural device useful courts, foreclosing experimentation different approaches compatible principles. All things "good" "desirable" mandated remain free procedures attuned special justice local levels. Principles federalism readily compromised sake finding sustenance considerations convenience certainly Countless times past 50 extolled virtues allowing serve "laboratories" experiment differ those Yet press procrustean mold. will great mischief, continues, repeat, business trivializing matters better left 31 Accordingly, POWELL'S dissent. POWELL, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST join, 33 moment product historical accident, embodied slightest policies purports serve. Because fixing uphold statute. Even assumed requires incidental hence incorporated Due Process therefore 34 correctly observes, restricted trial—culminating acquittal conviction. debate House Representatives confirms proposition. Annals Cong. 753 (1789). generally Wilson, 332, 339-342, 1013, 1019-1021, 232 (1975). consonant prevailing practice regarding pleas bar. autrefois acquit convict, implemented maxim, Blackstone, man placed offense,1 interposed basis actual conviction.2 bar—which embody policy, describes it,ante, directed. See, Haskell, Fed.Cas. 207, 212 (No. 15,321)(CC Pa. 1823)(Washington, J.); People Goodwin, Johns. 187, 205 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1820); cf. Olcott, Johns.Cas. 301 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1801) (Kent, J.). remains rule. n. 2, supra. existed separate become intertwined doctrine bar dictum Lord Coke, "[j]ury retorned heard, they ." E. Institutes 110 (6th ed. 1681); accord, id., 227(b). arose practice, rather element facts. First, civil criminal. Kirk, "Jeopardy" During Period Year Books, 82 602, 609 (1934). Second, treaties laid down effect failure follow C. St. Germain Doctor Student 1531, Dialogue ch. (1970). Third, never pleaded successfully Yearbooks, arisen. 611. Fourth, Blackstone dealt discharge section bar, discussion dealing verdicts. Compare 335-* 338, 360.3 forbidding out circumstances medieval England, "when jurors counties facts occurred summoned give Westminster invariable connection, problem offense." 612 (footnote omitted). 36 Notwithstanding origin defense Crown oppression 17th century. Reaction "tyrannical practice," Queen Charlesworth, B. & 460, 500, 121 Eng.Rep. 786, 801 (Q.B.1861), discharging juries permitting reindictment appeared likely4 common-law judges declared capital cases, juror withdrawn, consent it; capital, consent, otherwise King Perkins, Holt. 403, 1122 (K.B.1698). Whether strict ever stringently applied, modified soon announced. Kinloch, Fost. 16, 168 (K.B.1746). event, furnished plea acquit. Rather, viewed matter committed discretion judge, error lie nor future allowed. Winsor, Cox C.C. 276, 313-323, 325-326 (Q.B.1865); 507-515, Eng.Rep., 803-806.5 Thus, while adapted Coke's later recognized country sphere Clause, compare 301-302, Green, 223-224, 199 (1957), refused import realm latter informed framing 37 practice—a come regard due process absorbed Clause—with concerned itself 165 (1824). Sitting Perez who year written spoken [the Amendment] interpreted mean nothing short prisoner, thereupon." Fed.Cas., 212. authored Perez. Nine explain treatise meaning party offence, convicted, acquitted charged, passed thereon him." p. 659 (1833).6 most unlikely either Members thought interpreting verdict, grounds "manifest necessity" retrial.7 Wheat., 580. Justices Washington believed embraced conviction, independent barring needless discharges jury.8 decisions throughout 20th centuries ambiguous, read merely reaffirming principle justified necessity, adding gloss.9 38 century, many blend contained Constitutions.10 provided significant vexed: 39 little value citizen jeopardy] remedy. impanel render demands, attorney desires, ordered trying him, last resort, boasted right?" O'Brian Commonwealth, 72 Ky. 333, 339 (1873). 40 Cf. 199. putting use 17th-century judges, so—with apparent awareness novelty action—under rubric Given unreflective incorporation surprising fixed jury.11 do appear aware adapting area rights, perceived examine trappings light uses put.12 41 "defendant's analysis, 837 right" spelled Wade,13 rationale expressed inGreen 335 223—a midtrial jury—appears echo earlier: 42 ". [T]he compelling live neither confronted question "[t]his others, taken position again." 188, 224. 44 Having accepted almost articulated proceeded adopt analysis implementing 100 (1963), mistrial witnesses called. Finding absence "imperious necessity," 736, 1034, reprosecution. contains jeopardy's determinative moment.14 Nevertheless, demarcation see, 466, 1071, 425 (1973); Sisson, 267, 305, 2117, 2137, 608 (1970), presented contest over issue.15 45 lead enlisted service principles, largely apparently history. view, triggers accept system. acceptance primarily tenure convenience, justification elevating doctrine. hesitan derives Framers' derived, doctrinal reasoning dimension. Restraint doubly indicated respect trials. Where begins hear evidence." 265 No suggested today, depending asserted bench 46 turn next examination belatedly advance. 47 Three aspects ordinarily precede initial introduction evidence trial: motions, selection, statements. Defendants vitally interested each, yet far trigger 48 may, sometimes must, Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 12, move various rulings indictment admissibility These practical terms, decide case. They devotion energies, exceeding necessary itself. making deciding pretrial motions. Appellee contend otherwise. clear, central concern regarded protecting expenditures efforts resources. 49 Opening statements trials.16 type counsel prompt abort—by dismissing otherwise—the proceedings reindicting anew. request continuance gain meet unexpected stratagem, although rarely prevail. delay postponement occasioned opening-statement phase adverse abuse. appears difference substance serving policies. situation respects selected, defendant—by voir dire challenges participates factfinder. unusual entail major effort extend protracted period. But, expenditure alone sufficient jeopardy.17 offers claim prosecutor—dissatisfied process—is successful seated, indeed whole panel denial abuse rights Moreover, factfinder favorably inclined toward cause. reassignment another, waived belief original favorably. having "trial refer other disposed defendant. event distinguish eyes general, particular, factfinder's work. "a before" 224 (emphasis added). When undertaken duty—the hearing evidence—the quite clearly way, prosecution's begun unfold trier fact. Scott, 82, 95, 2187, 2196, 65. commences, becomes public record. on, retrial repeating painful embarrassing testimony, run" strengthen At retrial, example, prepared rigors cross-examination. taking testify. Carsey 129 U.S.App.D.C. 205, 208-209, 392 810, 813-814 (1967) (Leventhal, J., concurring). implicated threshold crossed, before. 53 crucial evident Once embarked factfinding mission, concluding begun; hands expect proceed finish. furnishes places advance real jeopardy—in terms—can begin. III conclude Amendment—merely virtue long, unreasoned acceptance—required imposes answer fundamental 373, 1634, 1635, 1639, 184 (1972) (Powell, concurring judgment); Ludwig Massachusetts, 427 618, 632, 96 2781, 2788, 732 (1976) previous makes accorded today implicates identified sense. incorporating t "jot-for-jot" Duncan Louisiana, 391 145, 181, 88 1444, 1465, 491 (1968) (Harlan, dissenting). IV 56 Aside paying cryptic homage hitherto unexplained attempt justify mandates adopts. identifies policy fair justice, elevate status. "line-drawing" finds logic convenience. perceive impose what, effect, Union. Rev.Codes 95-1711(3) (1947) pertinent part: "[A] transaction former circumstances: (d) improperly terminated. Except subsection, improper termination reasons amounting takes place verdict. Cunningham, 166 530, 535-536, 535 186, 189. addition holds "proceedings commence," Klinefelter Superior 108 Ariz. 494, 495, 502 531, 532; Mojarro Padilla, 107 134, 139-140, 483 549, 553. Until recently, New York Mizell Attorney General, 442 868 (E.D.N.Y.). Cline reversed, 170 520, 724, appeal, moot him. information. issue, consolidated appellees' specifically challenge Appeals' ruling intimate correctness. present 717; Wheeler, 313, 1079, 303; Burks 2141, 1; Greene Massey, 19, 2151, 15; Sanabria 54, 2170, 43; Swisher Brady, 438 204, 2699, 705; Halsbury's Laws England ¶ 242 (4th 1076). Establi hed Turner's Case, 158, defensive acquittal. mention commented "universal maxim life, once, offence." 335. Sigler, 1-37 (1969). Mayers Yarbrough, Bis Vexari: Trials Successive Prosecutions, 74 Harv.L.Rev. (1960). M. Friedland, (1969); ALI, Administration Criminal Law: (1935). expression concept, 1822 prior "[t]here wide Commonwealth Cook, Serg.&R. 577, 596 (Pa.). deadlocked standing despite Tateo, 377 463, 1587, 1589, 448; 689-690, 837-838, 974. fact, close reading purporting settling arising administration justice. cast late academic only. wake precedential authority: Simmons 142 148, 171, 968; Thompson 155 271, 73, 146. Kepner 195 100, 797, 114, 1904, verdict: regularly crime tribunal properly organized competent try Undoubtedly jurisdictions legal called deliverance f accused." Id., 128, 804. Dinitz, 424 600, 1075, 267; 343-344, 1021-1022, 232; Gori 367 364, 81 1523, 901. 804, 114; 10, Trial substitute inscrutable methods decisionmaking, battle, compurgation, ordeal. Holdsworth, History Law 317 (7th 1956). T. Plucknett, Concise Common (5th evolved, rational instrument decisionmaking—serving representative group peers sit guilt. Illustrative keeping unfed drink Y.B. Trin. Hen. VII, pl. 4. 119. Coke matter: "A member, other, ought Institutes, 227(b) 1861). 1866: rule] command confinement till death agree, avoid consequence exception introduced words 'except necessity.' " Winsor Queen, [1866] Q.B. 390, 394. curiae argument. alternatively proposes sliding "interest balancing test" termination. prima facie made, truly literature approach: "as selecting begins." Institute 213-214 1681). Archbold, Pleading, Evidence Practice Cases §§ 435-459 (35th 1962). Interestingly, wrote discharged, introduced. 360. recent edition compiled earliest editions, indicates ev dence originally authority. Ehrlich, Ehrlich's 941 (1959). Hale, Pleas 294-295 (W. Stokes Ingersoll 1847). infamous Ireland's How.St.Tr. 79 (1679), five defendants high treason. permitted deliberate three defendants, instructed Whitebread Fenwick "so full, satisfy private conscience." 121. two, declaring "be convenient, already proved, them stay proof in." Ibid. reindicted, executed, Whitebread's 311 315-318. Conway Lynch Ir. 149 (Q.B.1845), Irish Queen's Bench prisoners' reindictment, failed record condition prompted preventing Bench, rejected Charlesworth Winsor. adopted Crampton, dissented Lynch. Coolidge, 622 14,858) (CC Mass.1815) (Story, Despite Story's Commentaries, publication consider embodying Gibert, 1287, 1295-1296 15,204) Mass.1834). bar—and Clause—is recognition necessity. "necessity" discovery incontrovertible guilty—sufficed overcome valid Necessity went propriety Bigelow, D.C. 393, 401-403 (1884). recognizes probably Ante, 10. 968 (1891); Logan 144 263, 617, 429 (1892); 146 (1894); Dreyer Illinois, 187 71, 28, (1902); Lovato Mexico, 199, 107, 61 244 (1916). Morris, 1323 15,815) Mass.1851) (Curtis, Keerl 213 135, 469, 734 (1909); 114 (1904). Shoemaker, 1067 16,279) Ill.1840); Watson, 499 16,651) (S.D.N.Y.1868). Garrigues, N.C. 188 (1795) (semble ); Serg. 577 (Pa.1822); M'Kee, Bailey 651 (S.C.1830); Mahala State, Tenn. 532 (1837); Roe, Vt. (1840); Morgan Ind. 215 (1859); Webb, Cal. 467 (1869); Nolan Ga. 521 (1875); Teat Miss. 439 (1876); Ex parte Maxwell, Nev. 428, Mitchell Ohio 383 (1884); Ward, Ark. S.W. 191 (1886); Gardner, 62 Mich. 307, N.W. Hart i, Mass. 7, N.E. 310 (1889); Paterno, La.Ann. 514, So. McDonald Wis. 651, 863 Sommers, 60 Minn. 90, 907 (1895); Dulin Lillard, Va. 718, S.E. 821 (1895). Wade, (1835); Hoffman Md. 433 (1863); 393 Van Ness, N.J.L. (1912). American treatises included heading Jeopardy. Estoppel (2d 1876); Bishop, 1016 1872); Cooley, Constitutional Limitations 325-327 1871). Law, Commentary 6, 61-72 leading contrary. Chitty, 451-463, 480 (J. Perkins 655 (1830); 216; Redman, Iowa 329, 333 (1864); 478; 523; Davis, 80 384 (1879); 393; 38, 191; 311, N.W., 20; 515, 442; 653, 864; 91, 907; 722, S.E., 822; 10; Similarly, explore supporting valuation right, "valued." 38. Government conceded Brief O.T.1962, 489, 31. concession, cited (1916), believing immediately swearing. sides concession. Since dispute attachment, discuss matter. discussed Downum, owe silentio determination deference arrived full consideration, Monell City Dept. Social Services, 436 658, 709-710, 2018, 2045, 611 (1978) concurring), particularly (1975), petitioner sought filing refusal fix litigation reaffirmed today. Apparently, often choose reserve Tr. Oral Arg. 15-17; Reargument Amicus Curiae 25. course followed, disclosure strategy. l ast commentator proposed start dire, order juror, selected. Mistrial 513 proposal, grounding

Category: 0