Legal Document

434 U.S. 22 98 Supreme Court Reporter 81 54 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 207 Peter RINALDIv.UNITED STATES. Number 76-6194. Nov. 7, 1977. [Syllabus intentionally omitted] PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner's participation in a plot to rob safe-deposit boxes of the Doral Beach Hotel Miami Beach, Fla., violated laws both State Florida and States. He has been tried, convicted, sentenced imprisonment by sovereigns. claims that his federal conviction was obtained violation established policy against multiple prosecutions for same offense and, reason, should be set aside. The Solicitor General agrees submits summarily "vacate judgment court appeals remand case district with instructions dismiss indictment."1 Based on our independent evaluation unusual circumstances disclosed this record, we conclude such summary disposition is appropriate. 2 In February 1973, petitioner charged state offenses arising out robbery.2 March an indictment returned District Southern Florida, charging him conspiracy affect interstate commerce robbery Hobbs Act, 18 Code KF62 § 1951.3 May, convicted charges Dade County Circuit six years' imprisonment.4 A subsequent trial ended mistrial. Thereafter, questioned Government counsel regarding need another view petitioner's convictions. responded he had instructed superiors at Department Justice pursue prosecution vigorously because their concern convictions might reversed appeal. After second jury trial, Act charge; imposed 12-year sentence run concurrently sentence. 3 On appeal Appeals Fifth Circuit, argued longstanding act. See Petite versus States, 361 529, 530, 80 450, 451, 4 490 (1960).5 acknowledged its moved permit it seek dismissal indictment. granted motion remand. then filed pursuant Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 48(a).6 Noting Rule requires "leave court," denied (1) not made until after completed; (2) prosecutor acted bad faith representing properly maintain notwithstanding fact already offense.7 Government, joined codefendant Washington, appealed from denial dismiss. 5 divided panel affirmed, re 531 Federal Reporter, 2nd 1297 (1976). petition rehearing en banc vote 7 6, reaffirmed panel's holding. 544 203 All members agreed Government's timely,8 but they disagreed question whether prosecutor's justified Court's refusal aside defendant's conviction. 6 majority unclean hands gave adequate reason deny relief,9 defendant no right have otherwise valid dismissed simply own procedures.10 dissenters were inquiry limited propriety motivation seeking dismissal;11 under view, earlier misconduct irrelevant could justify judicial imposition defendant.12 described limits exercise discretion initiate, or withhold, crimes. useful efficient management executive resources encourages local responsibility law enforcement.13 But also serves more important purpose protecting citizen any unfairness associated successive based conduct. 8 respect, represents response repeated expressions Members Court. Lanza, 260 377, 383, 43 141, 143, 67 L.Ed. 314 (1922), example, Mr. Chief Taft quoted following passage Fox Ohio, How. 410, 435, 12 213 (1847): 9 "It almost certain, that, benignant spirit which institutions systems are administered, offender who suffered penalties denounced one would subjected time punishment other acts essentially same, unless indeed occur instances peculiar enormity, where public safety demanded extraordinary rigor." 10 What come known as formulated direct opinions Bartkus Illinois, 359 121, 79 676, 684 (1959), Abbate 187, 666, 729 holding Constitution does Governments power prosecute As these decisions recognize, system legitimate, necessarily identical, interests person criminal both. These cases reflect if Double Jeopardy Clause applied when sovereign greater interest first proceed, administration justice may suffer. supra, 137, S.Ct., 685; U.S., 195, 670. Yet mindful potential abuse rule permitting duplicate prosecutions, noted "[t]he greatest self-restraint necessary yields results little sympathy." 138, 686. 11 continuing sensitivity fairness implications power, adopted refusing bring except advance compelling enforcement.14 designed limit situations comporting rationale existence power. Although constitutionally mandated, Executive protect which, "dual sovereignty" principle inherent system, embraced Clause. light parallel purposes fundamental constitutional guarantee double jeopardy, courts receptive, circumspect, seeks leave implement policy. Here, 48(a) court" petitioner. Under standard Appeals, empowered withhold decision terminate clearly disserved interest. Cowan, 524 504, 513 (CA5 1975).15 Pursuant superior Department, represented decided spite prior prosecution. fact, however, authorized required considered representations incompatible preserving integrity courts. salient issue, rather later efforts similarly tainted impropriety. Our examination record (and will presume) part sought prosecution, policy, motivated considerations cannot fairly characterized "clearly contrary manifest interest." F.2d, 513.16 13 overriding individual needless prosecutions. defendant, therefore, receive benefit whenever application urged Government.17 Without derogating expressed actions certain officials stage agree "[n]o action can now replace waste prosecutorial expended obtaining . [and] societal vindicated punishing further received substantial who, determined, prosecuted government." 14 It was, refuse grant ground resulted than inadvertence. proceed forma pauperis writ certiorari granted. vacated, remanded dismissing 15 so ordered. 16 CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER dissents. 17 REHNQUIST, whom WHITE joins, dissenting. Watts 422 1032, 95 2648, 45 688 (1975), Court, three Justices dissenting, concession accidentally Ackerson 419 1099, 767, 42 796 (1975); Hayles 892, 168, 136 (1974). Whatever assisting enforcement Department's internal today places imprimatur quite different unsettling new prosecutes individuals tried violating similar order possibility being appeal, contemplates dismissed, even entry guilty verdicts, ultimately affirmed. According Appeals: 19 "[T]he attorney conceded 'responsible person' within aware Policy through defendants, nevertheless, fear case; only appellate affirmed defendants raised did move dismissal. [According attorney], position never brought, once defendants. Indeed, states permission Assistant Attorney charge well given hence, there Policy. Had event occurred, absolutely proper, rescind, retroactively, authorization now, finding made, duplicitous promote." 203, 207.* 20 allows "by court." This proviso specifically added amendment original draft, provided automatic upon seem directed toward assessment Cf. 504 1975). concluded & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions find conclusion lower 48(a). reasoned, "the attempt manipulate use capricious, inconsistent constitutes interest; sanction conduct invite future Government." 209. 21 past, ordered indictments without discussing justification action. full opinion subject, again fails enunciate why must reverse admission administrative error going guilt innocence defendant. Cf.Watts, 1032-1038, 2651 (BURGER, C. J., dissenting). apparent inability enforcing request suggests inappropriate argument. Memorandum 9. commit robbery, grand larceny, carrying concealed weapon. Section 1951 provides part: "(a) Whoever way degree affects conspires do shall fined $10,000 imprisoned twenty years, both." concurrent terms five larceny counts consecutive term year's weapons count. State's confession error, His two Scaldeferri State, 294 So.2d 407 (Fla.App.), cert. sub nom., Pompeo 303 (Fla.), Washington 993, 304, 266 most frequently duplicating federal-state stated Justice, act barred "unless reasons compelling." contemplating obtain appropriate General. case, official insist retrial requisite approval. But, itself illustrates, encompasses transaction. "it general 'that several single transaction alleged together basis dictated orderly enforcement.' behalf closely related formally defined memorandum Attorneys. (Department Press Release, Apr. 1959)." 530-531, 451. states: "The file indictment, information complaint thereupon terminate. Such during consent defendant." n. 5, supra. prior-authorization requirement ensures normally make "compelling reasons" determination commencement occasion, initiated When discovered pending before remedy moving allow Exercising afford relief "just circumstances," 28 2106, occasions. 769, (1974); Redmond 384 264, 86 1415, 521 (1966); Marakar 370 723, 82 1573, 803 (1962); (1960). terms: "In unidentified, responsible, knowledge forbidden For arguing exists separate conviction, allegedly imply lack 'compelling reason' fully throughout trials does, court, constitute faith." 208. stated: reconsidering vest dismissed. While obviously avoiding validly weigh [the Court's] order." Id., They withholding [to dismiss] justified. motive entire litigation manner consistent interest, activity." (emphasis original). logic majority's "bad faith" rationale: "[I]n what determined indeed, confessed faith, government persisted obtained, result holds 'invite Government,' rewarded very long last recant good indictment." 210-211. announcing Rogers "Cooperation between prosecutive officers essential gears mesh properly. We continue every effort cooperate authorities end jurisdiction, federal, best served. If accurately, followed intelligent cooperation authorities, consideration seldom arise." Dept. 1959, Page 3. At heart announced statement: duty observe rulings well. effect, said although Lanza sound law, care applying it. "Applied indiscriminately it, like rules cause considerable hardship. Applied wisely Consequently indicated—those us responsibilities particular area." Ibid. words inserted explanation. some exercised delineated principal object apparently harassment, e. g., charging, dismissing, recharging, moves over objection. See, Cox, 342 167, 171 (CA5), denied, nom. Cox Hauberg, 381 935, 85 1767, 700 (1965); Woodring 311 417, 424 (CA8), Felice 373 913, 83 1304, 414 (1963). held consented prompted 1975); Ammidown, 162 U.S.App.D.C. 28, 33, 497 615, 620 (1973). unnecessary decide circumstances, since, assuming remains same. reaching conclusion, relied heavily remarks oral Attempting rebut "responsible person" showed approval General, contended proper assured charges. counsel's argument mark departure persuaded overzealous rationalize signal unequivocally strictly adhered since announcement 1959. 3, 7. maintained 6-7. There suggestion cognizant shortly accept faith. thought deprive policy's deter attorneys. below, fail see how rewarding those responsible misconduct. leaves intact encourage repetition impropriety case. * contradict repudiate Appeals. casually reject Appeals' understanding shared. informed retroactive prosecution." added). By time, noted, safely

Classification Label: 0