Document: 367 U.S. 364 81 S.Ct. 1523 6 L.Ed.2d 901 Dante Edward GORI, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 486. Argued May 3, 1961. Decided June 12, Rehearing Denied Oct. 9, See 82 25. Mr. Harry I. Rand, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Miss Beatrice Rosenberg, respondent. Opinion of the Court, by Justice FRANKFURTER, announced CLARK. 1 In view this Court's prior decisions, our limited grant certiorari in case1 brings a narrow question here. We are to determine whether, particular circumstances record, petitioner's conviction at his second trial2 violation 18 U.S.C. § 659, U.S.C.A. 659,3 after first trial had been terminated judge's declaration mistrial sua sponte and without 'active express consent,'4 violates Fifth Amendment's prohibition double jeopardy. The Court Appeals Second Circuit banc affirmed (one judge dissenting), holding constitutional objection merit. 282 F.2d 43. agree that Amendment does not require contrary result.5 2 Petitioner was brought before jury District Eastern New York on February 4, 1959, an information charging he knowingly received possessed goods stolen interstate commerce. That same afternoon, during direct examination fourth witness Government, presiding judge, own motion with neither approval nor counsel,6 withdrew juror declared mistrial. It is unclear what reasons caused court take action, which characterized as 'overassiduous' criticized premature.7 Apparently inferred prosecuting attorney's line questioning presaged inquiry calculated inform other crimes accused, took action forestall it. any event, it obvious, concluded, 'was acting according convictions protecting rights accused.' page 46. below did hold ruling erroneous or abuse discretion. find prosecutor's conduct unexceptionable reason mistrial, therefore, 'entirely clear.' say 'the should have awaited definite would permitted clear-cut ruling,' that, failing do so, displayed 'overzealousness' acted 'too hastily.' Id., pages 46, 48. But discussing wide range discretion 'fundamental concepts federal administration criminal justice' allow determining whether appropriate—a responsibility 'is particularly acute avoidance prejudice arising from nuances heated atmosphere trial, cannot be fully depicted cold record appeal,' id., 47—and corresponding affirmative precedents impose, concluded: 3 'On basis we believe decision difficult, exercised judges seem us sound. * ' 4 Certainly, skimpy us8 exceed appropriate scope review were ourselves attempt pass independent judgment upon propriety even prone so—as not, due regard guiding familiarity district conditions Courts Appeals. 5 On March petitioner moved dismiss ground try him again constitute denied retried April. He now attacks resulted. state required broad contentions pressed, respectively, counsel Government. case one which, viewing most favorably petitioner, order claim jeopardy based found apparently justified clearly its record. What unquestionable product extreme solicitude—an overeager solicitude, may be—in favor accused. 7 Since 1824 has settled law 'The double-jeopardy provision Amendment* mean every time defendant put competent tribunal entitled go free if fails end final judgment.' Wade v. Hunter, 336 684, 688, 69 834, 837, 93 L.Ed. 974. United States Perez, 9 Wheat. 579, 165; Thompson States, 155 271, 15 73, 39 146; Keerl State Montana, 213 135, 137—138, 29 469, 470, 53 734; see Ex parte Lange, Wall. 163, 173—174, 21 872; Green 355 184, 188, 78 221, 223, 199. Where, deemed compelling who best situated intelligently make such decision, ends substantial justice attained discontinuing defendant's consent over objection, consistently Amendment. Simmons 142 148, 12 171, 35 968; Logan 144 263, 617, 36 429; Dreyer People Illinois, 187 71, 85—86, 23 28, 32—33, 47 79. also clear 'This long favored rule declare another panel will served *,' Brock North Carolina, 344 424, 427, 73 349, 350, 97 456,9 declined scrutinize sharp surveillance exercise Lovato Mexico, 242 199, 37 107, 61 244; cf. supra. Perez case, authoritative starting point field, Story, unanimous thus stated principles since guided courts their application concept situations giving rise mistrials: 8 '* think, all cases nature, invested authority discharge verdict, whenever, opinion, taking into consideration, there manifest necessity act, public otherwise defeated. They sound subject; impossible define circumstances, render proper interfere. To sure, power ought used greatest caution, under urgent very plain obvious causes; and, capital especially, extremely careful how they interfere chances life, prisoner. But, all, right discharge; security faithful, sound, conscientious discretion, rests, this, cases, judges, oaths office. *' Wheat., 580. present falls within these considerations. Judicial wisdom counsels against anticipating hypothetical abused so call safeguard Amendment—cases harassed successive, oppressive prosecutions, exercises help prosecution, going badly, affording another, more favorable opportunity convict Suffice unwilling, where appears granted sole interest defendant, necessary consequence bar retrial. hark back formalistic artificialities seventeenth century procedure confine them navigate compass between Scylla Charybdis. unduly hesitant conscientiously sensitive lights immediate exigencies effective protection 10 Affirmed. 11 DOUGLAS, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, BLACK BRENNAN concur, dissenting. place comes out, when faced problem depends largely atarts. 13 Today phrases terms 'to prosecution' hand 'in defendant' other. former plainly no person shall subject offence twice life limb *.' said until today, I believe, ever intimated ordered request consent. Yet situation presented here, (282 46)1 14 There occasions had, although impanelled discharged reaching verdict Mistrial because unable classic example; critical circumstance 617. 79; Moss Glenn, 189 506, 851, 921; 734. Tactical army field held justify withdrawal court-martial proceeding institution calmer days. Discovery 'one members might biased Government warrant direction new trial. 689, 837. And t ates, 146. say, 'a valued completed must some instances subordinated public's fair trials designed just judgments.'2 supra, While matter court, guidelines—' can discontinued doing, failure discontinue defeat justice.' 690, 838. date exceptions narrowly confined. Once sworn, attaches subsequent prosecution barred, ordered—absent showing imperious necessity.3 As Story Coolidge, 25 Fed.Cas. 622, No.14,858, 'only extraordinary striking circumstances.' 16 my point. read Double Jeopardy Clause applying strict standard. being punished, but jeopardy.' Ball, 163 662, 669, 1192, 1194, 41 300. equalize position government individual, discourage abusive use awesome society. starts attaches. stand fall performance directed prosecutor witnesses different abuses office guilty misconduct. breakdown judicial machinery happens stricken, discovered disqualified sit, impractical set. Ap eals thought, receive absolution crime.' 43, policy Bill Rights rare indeed citizen offense run gantlet twice. risk arbitrariness rests where, view, Constitution puts it—on 917, 282, 258. Prior proceedings two relevant purposes, denominated 'first' 'second' herein, statute makes unlawful, inter alia, receipt possession vehicle moving as, constituting, shipment freight, knowing stolen. cannot, course, result obtain Appeals, light close acquaintance local situation, decided operated furtherp rosecution, us. disposition, need reach Government's suggestion object adversely affects claim. note argument precipitous course events, objection. colloquy (immediately preceding mistrial) demonstrates nothing instigate only performing assigned duty trying conditions. This borne out entire transcript, including covering morning session. Nor entirely led though parties appear agreed intended prevent bringing evidence Even ruling. here contains, respect paragraphs opening, four six-line counsel, portion third three witnesses, transcript testimony witness. last items set affidavit Assistant Attorney opposition following Carolina therefore arose, Due Process Fourteenth passage quoted Brock, however, related prosecutions Fifth. said: 'I don't care dismissed not. attorney.' 201, 108, 244, could arraigned plead; then again. stands than proposition mere irregularity procedure' always amount Watson, 28 p. 499, 16,651; Whitlow, 110 F.Supp. 871; Ulrich, 42 F. 587. barred through misconstruction law. Jackson Superior Cal.2d 74 P.2d 243, 113 A.L.R. 1422; Spayde, Iowa 726, 80 N.W. 1058; Callendine, 288; Lillard Commonwealth, Ky., 267 S.W.2d 712; Mullins 258 Ky. 529, 606; Robinson 88 386, S.W. 210; Williams 93; Yarbrough State, 90 Okl.Cr. 74, 210 375; Loyd 76, 116 P. 959. Where made mistake concluding illegally impanelled, biased, barred. Whitmore 43 Ark. 271; Gillespie 168 Ind. 298, N.E. 829; O'Brian 72 333; Parker, 145 Mich. 488, 108 999; Nelson, 19 R.I. 467, 34 A. 990, 33 L.R.A. 559; M'Kee, 17 S.C.L. (1 Bailey) 651, Am.Dec. 499; Tomasson 112 Tenn. 596, 79 802. Hilands 111 Pa. 1, 70, 56 Am.Rep. 235, Commonwealth Simpson, 310 380, 165 498. Cf. Maden Emmons, 83 331. accused erred estimate prejudicial quality remarks Armentrout 214 273, N.E.2d 363, jurors' drinking beer bailiff. Leunig, 541.

Category: 0