Legal Document

458 U.S. 263 102 Supreme Court Reporter 3081 73 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 754 UNITED STATESv.HOLLYWOOD MOTOR CAR COMPANY, INC., et al. Number 81-1144. June 28, 1982. PER CURIAM. 1 Respondents, originally indicted in the Eastern District of Kentucky on two counts for violations 18 Code KF62 §§ 371 and 545, succeeded obtaining a change venue to Central California. In latter District, Government secured superseding indictment charging four new substantive making false statements customs officers violation § 542, addition original counts. The then obtained voluntary dismissal conspiracy count false-statement Respondents moved dismiss remaining ground that manifested prosecutorial vindictiveness therefore ran afoul rule announced Blackledge versus Perry, 417 21, 94 2098, 40 628 (1974). denied respondents' motion, but stayed commencement trial permit an appeal. Appeals Ninth Circuit held "that denial motion based vindictive prosecution is immediately appealable as final decision under 28 1291." 646 Federal Reporter, 2nd 384, 386 (9th Cir. 1981).1 reaching this holding relied its prior decisions Burt, 619 831 (1980), Griffin, 617 1342, cert. denied, 449 863, 101 167, 66 80 (1980). Reaching merits, court respondents had established case requiring indictment. sought review Court. 2 We do not reach question vindictiveness, we hold was without jurisdiction 1291 Court's interlocutory order refusing Congress has limited Courts "final district courts." 1291. This long policy embodied statute inimical piecemeal appellate which terminate litigation, at strongest field criminal law: 3 "The general principle federal jurisdiction, derived from common law enacted by First Congress, requires nisi prius proceedings await their termination judgment. . insistence finality prohibition discourage undue litigiousness leaden-footed administration justice, particularly damaging conduct cases. See Cobbledick States, 309 323, 324-326 [60 540, 541, 84 L.Ed. 783]." DiBella 369 121, 124, 82 654, 656, 7 614 (7). 4 interpreted jurisdictional departures only category cases falling within "collateral order" exception delineated Cohen Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 545-547, 69 1221, 1225-26, 93 1528 (1949). Such orders "must conclusively determine disputed question, resolve important issue completely separate merits action, be effectively unreviewable appeal judgment." Coopers & Lybrand Livesay, 437 463, 468, 98 2454, 2458, 57 351 (1978). cases, have adhered collateral three occasions: present each these were factors noticeably lacking instant 5 Stack Boyle, 342 1, 72 96 (1951), denying reduce bail could reviewed before trial. Writing separately, Justice Jackson (the author Cohen) recognized "an fixing can halting main trial—its issues are entirely independent tried—and unless it sentence, never all." U.S., 12, S.Ct., 7. Abney 431 651, 97 2034, 52 651 (1977), permitted pretrial double jeopardy grounds. Perhaps most among relevant factors, "the rights conferred accused Double Jeopardy Clause would significantly undermined if claims postponed until after conviction sentence." Id., 660, 2040. One right guaranteed tried twice same offense. "[I]f defendant avoid exposure thereby enjoy full protection Clause, his challenge must reviewable subsequent occurs." 662, 2041 (emphasis original). Finally, Helstoski Meanor, 442 500, 99 2445, 61 30 (1979), Congressman taken assert immunity upon him Speech or Debate Constitution. Crucial our view protected Congressmen " 'not consequences litigation's results also burden defending themselves.' 508, 2449, quoting Dombrowski Eastland, 387 82, 85, 87 1425, 1427, 577 (1967). been lost postponed. 6 Each satisfying other requirements Cohen, involved asserted legal practical value destroyed vindicated trial." MacDonald, 435 850, 860, 1547, 1552, 56 Our underscores significance feature. MacDonald whether appeal, trial, because alleged Sixth Amendment speedy concluding such authorized 1291, noted: "There perhaps some superficial attraction argument insure no nonspeedy ever held. Both doctrinally pragmatically, however, fails. Unlike afforded Speedy Trial does not, either face according Court, encompass 'right tried' upheld enjoyed all. It delay itself, offends against constitutional guarantee Proceeding with cause compound deprivation already suffered." 860-861, 1552-53. 8 claim modification retaliation exercise move venue, analogous instances allowed doctrine. But think more doctrine supra. fails third part test appeals articulated Lybrand, supra, "be 9 (1974), base prosecution, application principles North Carolina Pearce, 395 711, 89 2072, 23 656 (1969), prosecutor. Perry convicted state exercised statutory de novo jurisdiction. Prior prosecutor crimes severe than those he initially convicted. Because facts suggested "a realistic likelihood 'vindictiveness,' 27, 2102, deemed necessary apply "prophylactic Pearce," id., 26, State defendant's procedural right. 10 Although there language opinion suggesting possessed "right haled into all" serious charge, 30, 2104, clear using indicate entitled free any retrial whatever. stated "[w]hile Due Process Fourteenth bars felony assault charges Superior wholly misdemeanor charge." 31, n. 8, 2104 8. fully post-conviction relief, leading taint vindictiveness. 11 Obviously, desirable correct errors noticed time. equally evident when relief postconviction proceedings, subjected himself even though presence might require reversal possibly second Nevertheless, and, where dictate otherwise, provision prejudicial error normally adequate means vindicating accused.2 As noted 7, 7: 12 "Admittedly, value—to all unusual litigant—in triumphing rather it, regardless substance winning claim. truism confused quite distinct proposition certain (because entailed, advantage litigant sooner) should resolved 13 Even vindication altogether, conditions justifying necessarily satisfied. example, declined whose obtain review, despite recognition who successfully establish will tried." 861, 1553, nature "[p]roceeding 1553. reflects crucial distinction between remedy charges. former falls not. 14 simply one all.3 plausibility contention claim, dispositive entire decided favorably defendant, quickly possible course litigation. applied, questions constitutionality statutes authorizing doubtless numerous fall definition, swallowed ever-multiplying exceptions. narrow group meet being "effectively judgment," is, hold, them. 15 petition certiorari granted, judgment reversed, instructions 16 so ordered. 17 BLACKMUN, whom BRENNAN MARSHALL join, dissenting. Today, carries recent penchant summary extreme. substantial controversial raised here—whether trial—does my view, lend itself treatment. briefing argument, briefed argued subject lower opinion. N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions dissent. 19 * seems me, shown disturbing tendency late dispose difficult per curiam reversals. assume prompted, least part, growing pressures calendar ill-conceived stay abreast increasing workload whatever costs may be. regret pattern, demeans work surely tends lessen quality product. 20 Summary action unfortunate case, directs dismissed rehearing Appeals. Indeed, year ruled favor respondents—the affirmatively represented "ha[d] prosecution." States' Emergency Motion Affirmance reprinted App. Brief Opposition 5a. result, 21 Respondents' opposition Government's understandably focuses arguments certiorari—in particular, failure raise timely fashion. Coupled litigation strategy, disposition deprives "day court" singularly inappropriate manner. II 22 Additionally, find today's ruling clearly compelled warrant treatment, especially Solicitor General, contrary frequent practice, certiorari. enough court. Certainly, mandated precedents. explains, (1949), interpret three-part standard met. fails, mention first requirements, presumably they satisfied here: grounds "constitute[s] complete, formal, court, rejection [vindictive prosecution] claim," 659, 2040, resolves to, separable from, principal accused's impending i.e., guilty offense charged," ibid. (1978), depended assessment extent prejudiced defense—an "speculative" 858, 1551—an allegation impermissibly increased response evaluated available. 24 properly suggests requirement set out context. ante, 267. But, unlike force seek vindicate, contrast offend[ed] Ibid. When victim said "not [increased] (1974) added). And analogized see must, course, all.1 25 Moreover, suffice chilling effect designed prevent. repeatedly forbids actual retaliatory motive. Rather, emphasized 'since fear unconstitutionally deter [his] right[s] ., due process freed apprehension motivation. .' 2102 added), 725, 2080, (1969); Goodwin, 457 368, 375-376, 2485, 2490, 74 (1982). convinced ultimately prevail burdens attending enhanced exercising rights. well then, "reversal error" "adequate accused." Ante, 268. 26 extending precedents, goes beyond rulings characterizes "directly conflict[ing]" below. 264, 1. Brizendine, 212 U.S.App.D.C. 169, 180, 659 215, 226 (1981), Columbia refused involving "claims arising plea bargaining process." That expressly consider appealability "in situation .," "turned purely ." challenged filed 175, F.2d, 221. Similarly, Gregory, 1132, 1136 Fifth did foreclose possibility appeal.2 27 cannot conclude consistent weight authority grant oral argument. directly conflicts adopted Circuits. Those courts aired appeals. 215 (1981); 1132 (CA 1981). Noting "encouragement fatal law," observed "[b]earing discomfiture cost crime innocent person painful obligations citizenship." 325, 60 783 (1940). Thus, run "[t]he correctness court's made reconsideration tribunal." 325-326, 541-42. limitation imposed considered meritorious. 857-858, 6, 1551, By "will lost, probably irreparably," 546, 1225, rendition judgment, imply merit violated merely premised appealed (1977) (noting "contesting very hale charge him"); 30-31, 2103-2104 (observing "went power bring answer brought him"; that, acts vindictively enhancing charges, "simply precluded calling respondent ."; initiation [a operated deny law"; "North permissibly charge"). Other restricted applied collateral-order 265-266. Venable, 585 71, 74-75 (CA3 1978) (denial bar estoppel appealable); Alessi, 536 978, 980-981 (CA2 1976) allegedly bargain appeal).

Classification Label: 8