Document: 412 U.S. 17 93 S.Ct. 1977 36 L.Ed.2d 714 James CHAFFIN, Petitioner,v.LeRoy STYNCHCOMBE, Sheriff of Fulton County. No. 71—6732. Argued Feb. 22, 1973. Decided May 21, Syllabus Upon retrial following the reversal his conviction, petitioner was again found guilty and sentenced by jury to a greater term than had been imposed first jury. After exhausting state court appeals, denied habeas corpus on claim that imposing higher sentence unconstitutional, Court Appeals affirmed. Held: The rendition upon does not violate Double Jeopardy Clause, North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 711, 719—721, 89 2072, 2077—2079, 23 656, offend Due Process Clause as long is informed prior second otherwise shown be product vindictiveness. Nor possibility impermissibly 'chill' exercise criminal defendant's right challenge conviction direct appeal or collateral attack. Pp. 1981—1987. 455 F.2d 640, Glenn Zell, Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner. Richard E. Hicks, respondent. Mr. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 A writ certiorari granted in this case consider whether, those States entrust sentencing responsibility jury, Fourteenth Amendment bars from rendering sentences retrials reversals convictions. In 656 (1969), established limitations imposition judges similar circumstances. While we reaffirm underlying rationale Pearce vindictiveness against accused having successfully overturned has no place resentencing process, whether judge hold today due process law require extension Pearce-type restrictions sentencing. 2 * Early 1969, tried Georgia charge robbery open force violence, capital offense at time. which instructed it empowered impose death, life imprisonment, years,1 him 15 years prison. He appealed Supreme Court, claiming primarily trial given an erroneous instruction burden proving alibi defense. His rejected 225 Ga. 602, 170 S.E.2d 426 (1969). Thereafter, he renewed petition United District Northern Georgia. petitioner's contention meritorious, writ, ordered returned retrial. 3 before different new guilty. comparison transcripts two cases indicates trials were most respects. prosecuted both occasions same State's attorney prosecution witnesses testified facts surrounding alleged robbery. Petitioner, however, represented counsel and, addition repeating defense, interposed insanity defense offered former trial. New called testify sides issue. Also, while took stand made unsworn statement each case, latter longer contained autobiographical information presented including emotional discussion family background, account religious affiliation, job history, previous physical injuries, several poems songs written.2 4 instructions permissible range punishment prosecutor urged closing argument trial.3 This time, imprisonment. parties agree aware length meted out And, although one own previously charge,4 told convicted attack.5 5 Claiming improper State allow render harsher retrial, That affirmed lower court's judgment refused alter sentence. 227 327, 180 741 (1971). then filed application relief Federal arguing invalid under Pearce. disagreed declined issue writ. On Fifth Circuit, Court's holding received violative process. 640 (1972). Because other federal courts appeals held contrary are applicable,6 resolve conflict. 409 912, 243, 34 172 II 6 small number function felony rather judge.7 much written questions desirable8 compatible with modern philosophy 'the should fit offender merely crime,' Williams York, 337 241, 247, 69 1079, 1083, L.Ed. 1337 (1949), never expressed doubt about constitutionality practice. See McGautha California, 402 183, 196—208, 91 1454, 1461—1468, 28 711 (1971); Witherspoon Illinois, 391 510, 519—520 n. 15, 88 1770, 1775—1776, 20 776 (1968); Spencer Texas, 385 554, 560, 87 648, 651, 606 (1967); Giaccio Pennsylvania, 382 399, 405 8, 86 518, 522, 447 (1966). have always enjoyed 'wide leeway dividing between cases.' ]supra, U.S., S.Ct., 652. If concludes preferable because, instance, guarantees maintenance 'link contemporary community values penal system,' supra, 519 1775 because 'juries more likely act compassion, fairness, understanding judge,' Stubbs, Jury Sentencing Georgia—Time For Change?, Ga.St.B.J. 421, nothing intrudes choice. 7 Petitioner question proposition. Instead, contends that, may set sentence, its discretion must subjected when performed judge. primary reliance, therefore, placed recent asserts three distinct claims: (A) double jeopardy provision Amendment, binding through Benton Maryland, 784, 793—796, 2056, 2061—23 707 (1969); (B) occasioned part authority traditional concepts fairness process; (C) even absent reasonable fear vindictiveness, impermissible 'chilling effect' rights attack collaterally conviction. Each will considered separately. A. 8 arising context judicial resentencing, framed follows: 'When behest defendant aside ordered, what extent Constitution limit after retrial?' 713, 2074. addressing recognized long-accepted power 'to retry who succeeded getting aside,' id., 720, 2078 (emphasis original); Tateo, 377 463, 84 1587, 12 448 (1964), 'corollary' power, whatever legally authorized, conviction.' 2078. 9 foundational precedent view derives Stroud States, 251 40 50, 64 103 (1919), which, involved central present case. Robert Stroud, popularly known 'The Birdman Alcatraz,'9 indicted murder prison guard Leavenworth, Kansas. being won confession error Solicitor General. resulted another verdict degree death. appeal, unanimous despite 'placed within meaning Constitution.' Id., 18, 51. 10 reaffirmed decision, emphasizing now constitutes "well-established our constitutional jurisprudence" rests 'premise original has, behest, wholly nullified slate wiped clean.' 720—721, relying views Douglas Harlan their separate opinions 726, 744, 2081, 2085, urges overrule Stroud,10 step reasons stated decline take. B 11 Petitioner's focuses problem manifesting itself form increased can Under system would mete exercised conviction.11 Those actually consequence such motivation directly injured, but wrong extend well elect legitimate retaliation. Thus, fundamental notions embodied concept required defendants 'freed apprehension retaliatory motivation.' 725, 2080. To end, concluded 'whenever imposes severe trial, doing so affirmatively appear.' 2081. further prophylaxis, based 'objective concerning identifiable conduct occurring time proceeding.' Ibid. seeks said, premised apparent need protecting mere once clean begins anew, fresh some valid reason associated flexibility accepted concomitant 723, 2079. 13 Subsequent dispelled any hazard Moon 398 319, 90 1730, 26 262 (1970), determining retroactivity dismissed improvidently became clear there reconvicted eschewed contention, 'there standard violated.' 320, 1731. focus actual reflected decision last Term Colten Kentucky, 407 104, 92 1953, 32 584 principle applied bar de novo jurisdictions employ two-tier courts. noting '(i)t often (de 'appeal' court) inferior court,' 117, 1960, persuade us Penalized seeking underlay also inheres arrangement.' 116, 1960 supplied). short, violated 'possibility vindictiveness' inhere system. 14 then, controlled inquiry into possible counseled Moon, Colten. potential abuse is, think, minimis properly prerequisite penalty knowledge It conceded We suspect customary follow know charge, mistrial.12 Other distinguishing factors diminish impropriety As true Colten, whose handling sufficiently unacceptable unlike reversed, personal stake engage self-vindication. Similarly, unlikely sensitive institutional interests might occasion desirous discouraging regards meritless appeals.13 light these considerations, where prejudicial regarding withheld,14 basis poses real threat vindictiveness.15 C 16 final irrespective causes conceding plays discernible role,16 they either What said demonstrates provides foundation claim. contrary, intimated validity absence incidental deterrent effect appeal. likewise represents incompatible contention. relies instead Jackson, 390 570, 1209, 138 (1968), unconstitutional antikidnaping law. By limiting death statute 'discouraged' plead 581, 1216. interest Government retain could realized without accused. Therefore, structure struck down 'unnecessarily' 'needlessly chill(ed) basic contitutional rights.' 582, 1216.17 18 Jackson did hold, subsequent decisions clear, forbids every government-imposed choice rights. Brady 397 742, 1463, 25 747 Parker Carolina, 790, 1458, 785 Alford, 400 25, 160, 27 162 entered pleas order avoid dissuaded exercising was, sense, asserting rights, infirmity compelled result. particularly instructive. canvassed common plea-bargaining circumstances confronted 'certainty probability' if determines innocent demand receive followed waiver 751, 1470. Although circumstance assertion difficult choices upheld inevitable attribute tolerates encourages negotiation pleas.18 19 Harlan's Crampton Ohio, companion (1971), deals problems particular relevance since arises attacked Ohio conducting trials. allowed determine guilt single verdict, complained bifurcated argue mitigation forgoing remain silent guilt. 220—221, 1474. free 'chilled' prospect ensue.19 agree, impermissible. terms pertinent today, stated: 21 like rest legal system, replete situations requiring making judgments' course follow. . right, dimensions, whichever chooses, token forbid choose.' 213, 22 Recognizing inquiry, very nature, case-by-case basis, indicated 'threshold compelling election impairs appreciable policies behind involved.' frequently faced deciding assert silent. And fact silence regarded factor. These cases, erase call abrogation Georgia's unrestricted jury-resentencing sentencing, jury's assessment evidence hears appraisal demeanor character accussed, Supra, 21—22. Just guilty-plea practice20 choose accept risk waive see errors claimed, elevates above 24 himself 'chill factor' significance. Unlike situation lesser extent, nonbifurcated likelihood receiving quite remote weigh Several contingencies coalesce. First, succeed. Second, result remanding dismissing outright. Third, make prosecute select securing bench negotiating plea.21 Finally, convict ultimately arrive devoid genuine unrealistic anticipate occurrence events,22 especially infrequent strong unusually low, cannot speculative prospects interfere III Guided precedents conclusions reach. Clause. 'difficult,' Affirmed. DOUGLAS dissents dissenting 321, 1731, (1970). agrees STEWART MARSHALL establishing rule juries burdens successful (1968). STEWART, whom BRENNAN joins, dissenting. 29 2080, 'vindictiveness play receives trial.' I it, danger declines procedures eliminate danger, though adopted readily sacrificing dissent. 30 metes comes prosecutor. Either desiring punish challenged Out ask manner charges influence example, years' imprisonment asked penalty, jurors inflict punishment. gave option simply tactical move assure least 15-year But inconceivable setting seek secure appeal.* 31 purge retaliation prophylactic measures Without procedures, pointed extremely establish rataliatory motivation. ill-suited eliminating ought limited less reaching compromise verdict. why reduce unless forth kind 'Those objective 33 procedure serve minimize played role man lead vindictively Since measure would, most, reinstate none purposes served jeopardized. my Brother allowing impose, infringement 138. Requiring juryimposed findings illegitimate right. 35 MARSHALL, judge, give specifying aspects behavior justify enhanced Such defective ways. acknowledges violates gives taking Ante, 26—28. Yet, costs, juries, methods preventing, detecting, remedying violation balanced minor impair vindicate warrants increase unavailable unnecessarily therefore respectfully 37 begin appears ground. enhance appealed. apparently agrees, ante, 13, 28—29 nn. 14—15, suggests variety preventive remedial taken possibility. measures, believe, too intrusive selecting insulating deliberations inquiry. devised remedy broader vice, closely tailored vice severely intrude decisions. justified resentencing. 38 Of take them resentences offender. concedes 'properly retrial(s).' 26. only confidently De distinguished. Even acknowledged difficulty 725 20, Indeed, cite studies showed reconviction 'far rare,' ibid,; all substantial increased.1 39 Given entitled designed eliminate, minimize, follows, prospective carefully explore Cf. Ham South 524, 848, 46 (1973). inevitably frame do informing questioning them. addition, meaningless cause solely answers questions. Yet nearly large rural areas,2 notorious public even. seems me probable, substantially impede expeditious selection generally easy threshold showing local publicity, available raise serious representativeness finally chosen.3 curative improperly influenced 14. already recognized, believe disregard treat highly followed. Denno, 378 368, 388—389, 1774, 1786—1788, 908 (1964); Bruton 123, 128—137, 1620, 1623—1629, 476 Morgan, Some Problems Proof Anglo-American System Litigation 105 (1956). highlight problem. Not ineffective, course, inquiries effectiveness where, here, easily satisfied inquiries. infra, 43. 41 post-sentencing disclose decision. achieved secrecy deliberations. Clark 289 1, 53 465, 77 993 (1933), cited therein. 42 differing positions jury,4 convicts offense, applying surely close one, involved. impaired insignificant limitations, resolved favor power. 43 One group belief humane compassionate judges: judges, represent centralized government details life; re-election unduly swayed political considerations little impact jurors; routinely deal become callous insensitive human defendants. contrast, ties community, sits dissolves, members ordinarily experience offenders. Note, Virginia, Va.L.Rev. 968, 988—991 (1967). somewhat anomalous, contend constitutionally impose. understand, how justifies permits 44 policy implicated serves 1775, More accurately reflects community's moral attitude toward crime, criminal. Limitations ability decide fits crime it. determined representative views, thinks appropriate done reversible error, presumably defendant, occurred. preclude based, part, desire 45 resentencing: alternative minimizing seriously values, greatly affect sentencing.5 alone here. For, places unnecessary purports distinguish ground show structures 'an consequence.' 32. chilling 'incidental' intentional; excessive.' 1216; on, Jackson; nor id change test. still necessary, accomplishment purpose. 47 Brady, sought vacate plea pleaded punishment, provided recommendation viewed applicable inducement offers elicit 750—753, 1469—1472. analysis, upholding necessarily invalidated widespread practice bargaining, thought essential justice. incriminate analysis Jackson. 48 contended failure guilt-determining phase deterred testifying bearing alone, opened up impeachment pressure indistinguishable powerful rebuttal, widely procedural rules. 213—216, 1470—1472. many 49 Both test necessity. not, says '(where) is,' justified. 21. involve assessments relative severity jury;6 turned strict necessity.7 No materially advanced permitting interest. endorsed unnecessary, unquestionably appeal.8 50 adopt precluded considering punishments: 'Robbery violence shall punished recommends mercy, event penitentiary life: Provided, recommend imprisoned four years, court.' Ga.Code Ann. § 26-2502 (1935), replaced 26—1902 detailed description unique unsworn-statement Ferguson Georgia, 365 81 756, 783 (1961). During oral Tr. Oral Arg. 26, 32—33. At request, post-argument affidavits question. arguments themselves transcribed, states memory entirely matter, notes indicate, suggests, Any remaining foreclosed affidavit during unequivocally argued 'vigorously' behalf support substance testimony ample opportunity study proceedings convinced suffering 'mental defect.' explained evaluation, acquiesced request interpose speculated mistrial respondent mistrials reversals. 38. Compare Circuit instant (455 (1972)), Casias Beto, 459 54 (CA5 1972), Levine Peyton, 444 525 (CA4 1971), Pendergrass Neil, 456 469 (CA6 1972) (pet. cert. pending, 71 1472). appear uniformly inapplicable discussed Aplin, Sentence Increases Retrial U.Cin.L.Rev. 427, 430—432 provide categories noncapital cases. 6, 429 10. See, e.g., 421 968 President's Commission Law Enforcement Administration Justice, Challenge Crime Free Society 145 (1967), American Bar Association Project Standards Criminal Alternatives Procedures 1.1 (Approved Draft 1968) (both recommending abolition sentencing). T. Gaddis, Alcatraz (1955); R. Diseases Canaries (1935); Digest Birds (1939); 283 137 (CA10 1960), denied, 864, 834, 826 Brief 9; 40—41. per se establishes appellate forum access conditions equally all. 724, Griffin 351 12, 76 585, 100 891 (1956); 372 353, 83 814, 811 (1963); Rinaldi Yeager, 384 305, 1497, 577 Johnson Avery, 393 483, 747, 718 4, accompanying text. 14, infra. depending circumstances, desirable precaution 3, supra. suggested strenuously sought. indication exists record vigorously event, infer vindictive motive recommended Prosecutors reasonably expect get, knowing customarily prosecutor's strategy vary reaction proof State. practical constrained obtained prosecutorial malice remote. McMann, 436 103, 105—106 (CA2 1970). agreed inform publicized nature irregularity, informed. 39. decide, limitation cured careful venire cautionary instruction. susceptible prompted restrictions. sufficient here note institution ways invoked. Normally, collective determination, relevant 978—980; 428—429; LaFont, Assessment Punishment—A Judge Function?, Tex.L.Rev. 835, 837—842 (1960). important differences overcomes Sixth F.2d, 472 71—1472). jury-sentencing trials, assesses proceeding rendered (see 430, 441—442; 27—2534 bifurcation wipe away sense supply goal offender, concerned matters suggest approximation instructing return empowering whenever exceeds 1971); alternatives absolute protection ordinary contemplated They achieve, name susbtance approve argument, 11—12, seemed concede part: 'Question. Did anything trial? '(Petitioner's Counsel). No, not. Was vindictiveness? There none, obviously Why not? (about) sentence.' succinctly articulated narrow Jackson: 'Because penalizing penalize(d) right." 746, 1468 legitimacy 'plea bargaining,' noted Santobello 404 257, 495, 427 doubted administered' 'encouraged' 'essential' 'desirable' 'component administration justice.' 260—261, 498. 751—753, 1470 1472. theory created 'tension rights,' 211, 1469, Simmons 377, 967, 1247 terms, 212—213, 1469—1470, focused lack silent, or, differently, encouraged waiver. 213—217, reiterate dealing utilized means punishing protected dulled force: discourage "patently unconstitutional." Shapiro Thompson, 394 618, 631, 1322, 1329, 600 footnote 641 7. mentioned brief touched briefly argument. 13—14. merit. contrary. subject considerable speculation. Applying high give. importantly, 'needless.' 583, 1217. parameters judge- coterminous (1) restricting independent assessment, (2) concededly interests, thus 'necessary,' post, 44—46, tolerated Crampton. Where incursions closest Hermann, Frivolous Appeals, N.Y.U.L.Rev. 701 (1972); Carrington, Crowded Dockets Courts Appeals: Threat Function Review National Law, 82 Harv.L.Rev. 542 (1969)), forgo diminishing removing roadblocks disincentives Anders 386 738, 1396, 493 Younger Gilmore, 250, 142 Available statistical evidence, systems, volume rate risen steadily over few years. exception, consideration. 19—21 1970) ('The trend clearly appeal'); Administrative Office Courts, 1972 Annual Report Director II—11 (direct 25% 545 (approximately 200% 1959—1960 1966—1967). finds 'remote.' 27. conclusion strategic requesting foreclose underlines extraordinary attempting prove assume treated drew 516—518, 1774—1775, repeatedly reviewed courts, continuing bodies, cf. Illinois Somerville, 410 458, 477, 1066, 1077, 425 (1973) (Marshall, J., dissenting), supporting inference infrequently valuable include Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia. proceed knows imposed, endorse proposition required. holds compelled. distinguishes (was) conviction,' self-vindication.' mean resentenced place, judges. 266 N.C. 234, 236, 918, 920 (1966) (Judge trial); 268 707, 708, 151 571, 572 McLaughlin trial). respect institutional, personal: bodies deterring vindicating colleague. adapted 28—29, 15. bifurcation, special verdicts stating account, maximum earlier, obvious alternatives. inconsistent purpose sentencing—making crime—and 'would Clause.' point confuses carry sentencing; chooses procedure, substance, results among commands. inject irrelevant authority, method complying requirements. conflict Berry State, 61 Ga.App. 315, 148 (1939). Kentucky permit Meyer Commonwealth, S.W.2d 479, 482 (Ky.1971). waiver, Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 23(a), refuse agreement restricted Singer 380 24, 37, 85 783, 791, 630 (1965). discussing undesired outcome occur, '(s)everal coalesce.' appeal.' 33. But, list provides, contingent insist trial—reconviction 34—35. reduced two. 'cannot 'needless." 33—34, necessary; eliminated saying impractical necessary today's

Category: 0