Legal Document

356 U.S. 464 78 Supreme Court Reporter 829 2 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 913 William HOAG, Petitioner,v.The STATE OF NEW JERSEY. Number 40. Argued Nov. 19, 1957. Decided May 1958. Mr. Robert E. Knowlton, Camden, for the petitioner. David D. Furman, Trenton, respondent. Justice HARLAN delivered opinion of Court. 1 In this case we are asked to set aside, under Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment, a state conviction secured somewhat unusual circumstances. On June 26, 1951, Bergen County, New Jersey, grand jury returned three indictments against petitioner charging that on September 20, 1950, in concert with two others, he robbed individuals, Cascio, Capezzuto and Galiardo, at Gay's Tavern Fairview, Jersey. These were joined trial. The State called five witnesses: victims named indictment, other persons, Dottino Yager. Yager also robbery, but they not indictment. All witnesses, after stating testified elements robbery as defined Jersey statute:1 put fear property was taken from their persons. petitioner, who claimed tavern fateful day an alibi, sole witness defense. Although Galiardo had both identified photograph during police investigation, only one Yager, him trial robbers. 27, 1952, acquitted all indictments. 3 Subsequently, July 17, another County fourth indictment which same first respects except it victim Tavern. At upon witness, repeated his earlier testimony identifying defense Capezzuto, Dottino, each once again either robbers or positive identification possible. Petitioner alibi. This time verdict guilty. sustained appeal Superior 35 N.J.Super. 555, 114 Atlantic Reporter, 2nd 573, 21 N.J. 496, 122 628. We granted certiorari consider petitioner's claim, timely raised below, deprived due process. 352 907, 77 150, 116. 4 contends second prosecution growing out robberies infringed safeguards Double Jeopardy Fifth Amendment 'implicit concept ordered liberty' these such carried over restrictions States. Palko versus Connecticut, 302 319, 325, 58 149, 152, 82 L.Ed. 288. More particularly, is said following previous acquittal charges robbing amounted trying charges. However, circumstances shown by record, cannot say later violated 5 outset should be made clear has been twice jeopardy crime. courts, rejecting claim Constitution,2 have construed statute making four robberies, though taking place occasion, separate offense. construction consistent usual rule double does apply unless evidence necessary sustain would sufficient secure first. See Di Giosia, 413, 419, 70 756, 759; Labato, 7 137, 144, 80 617, 620. Certainly nothing prevented construction. 6 But even if constitutionally permissible punish offenses, necessarily follow free prosecute different question whether involved attempt 'to wear accused multitude cases accumulated trials.' supra, page 328, 153.3 do think always forbids offenses consecutive trials arise occurrence. any given course led fundamental unfairness. Of course, may very well preferable practice normally try several single prosecution, recent studies American Law Institute proposal. Model Penal Code § 1.08(2) (Tent.Draft.No.5, 1956).4 entirely matter us hold prevents allowing arising act transaction prosecuted separately, done.5 For long recognized essence our federalism widest latitude administration own systems criminal justice. Hurtado People California, 110 516, 111, 292, 28 232; Maxwell Dow, 176 581, 20 494, 44 597; West Louisiana, 194 258, 24 650, 48 965; Twining 211 78, 29 14, 53 97. last analysis, determination impermissible use multiple based overall formula. Here, elsewhere, 'The pattern process picked facts case.' Brock North Carolina, 344 424, 427—428, 73 349, 350—351, 97 456. And thus, without speculating hypothetical situations might prohibit prosecutions reach conclusion 8 upheld similar denial State's key witnesses previously tried convicted crimes formed basis charge Before judgments entered convictions testify Because intention likelihood new event reversal, declined ground answers self-incriminatory. point mistrial its representation intended procure held did violate 9 Remembering constituted offense victims, find no constitutional distinction between retrial those surrounding subsequent present case. It fair inference record before resulted unexpected failure identify investigation. Indeed, failed pleaded surprise attempted impeach testimony. that, turn events, decision so arbitrary lacking justification concepts constituting "the scheme justice,' process.' 428, 351. Thus, whatever limits confine right institute concededly plain transgressed 10 further barred 'collateral estoppel.' His position because disputed issue related participant there must having resolved favor. doctrine collateral estoppel, argument runs, grounded considerations basic fairness litigants, thus decline favor defendant deprives Accordingly, could relitigate 'identity,' precluded convicting 11 A common statement estoppel 'where fact essential judgment actually litigated determined valid final judgment, conclusive parties action cause action.' Restatement, Judgments, 68(1). As aspect broader res judicata, designed eliminate expense, vexation, waste, possible inconsistent results duplicatory litigation. Developments Law—Res Judicata, 65 Harv.L.Rev. 818, 820. originally developed connection civil litigation, widely employed federal courts. See, e.g., Harris State, 193 Ga. 109, 17 South Eastern 147 980; Commonwealth Evans, 101 Mass. 25; Oppenheimer, 242 85, 37 68, 61 161; Sealfon States, 332 575, 68 .Ct. 237, 92 180; cf. Yates 354 298, 335, 1064, 1085, 1356. 12 Despite wide employment, entertain grave doubts collaterial can regarded requirement. never held. need decide question, case, considered applicability court simply ruled give rise 'the questions, just (petitioner's) identity, way knowing jury's turned.' 505, 632. Possessing corrective power courts see Watts Indiana, 338 49, 50, note 1, 69 1347, 1348, 93 1801, justified substituting view verdict. 13 true when proper rights will examine foreclosed court. Niemotko Maryland, 340 268, 271, 71 327, 95 267, 280; Feiner York, 315, 316, 303, 304, 267. thought permit overrule controverted fairly debatable factual issues. 'On review here convictions, matters usually termed issues open reconsideration Observance restriction calls utmost scruple.' pages 50 51, 1348. 14 being go than court's findings embark sheer speculation order embraced favorable 'identity.' numerous determine certainty decided former general acquittal. Rogers, 102 Misc. 437, 170 York Supplement 86; Erwin, Utah 365, 422—424, 120 Pacific 285, 312—313; Halbrook, D.C., 36 F.Supp. 345. Keeping mind verdicts sometimes irrational, see, Dunn 284 390, 52 189, 76 356; Dotterweich, 320 277, 279, 64 134, 135, 88 48; Green 355 184, 221, 199, exceeded bounds concluding believe fear, them, reasons unrelated outguess score wholly keeping discharge difficult delicate responsibilities determining Federal Constitution. 15 Finally, denied 'speedy trial' Sixth provisions Fourteenth.6 hardly add sufficiency support solely within province 16 Affirmed. BRENNAN took part consideration 18 Chief WARREN, dissenting. 19 & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions undisputed disclosed plainly show obtained procedure requirements Amendment. facts: Sept. armed men lined up persons wall them. alone charged victims. trial, issue—whether committed robbery. issue. Three man; swear Petitioner's He sought establish presence elsewher heard evidence, duly deliberated, found Thereafter, indicted number four. time, witness. substantially Again, contested City guilt, successive litigation favor, contrary guaranteed technically nor receive total punishments Few dispute retried identical After conflicting robber's identity concluded least reasonable doubt existed robbers, presented jurors hope come conclusion. fail how unconstitutionality altered whit brought acquittal, relates name particular specified absolutely bearing identity. vice lies relitigating juries man's innocence guilt stake. taints 22 finds unnecessary grips problem, elects defer appraisal 4—3 majority That robber, impossible favorably now concludes resolution sort 'factual issue' "issue fact' coat many colors.' 1801. my posed 'fact all. undisputed. problem judge legal significance. since depends evaluation signifiance facts, task inescapably function supra; Fay 261, 272, 67 1613, 1619, 91 2043. 23 Assessing significance some involve, terms it, 'sheer speculation.' records indicate plainly, 'viewed eye proceedings,' 579, 240, 180, determinative unanimously justify Cf. Emich Motors Corporation General Corp., 558, 408, 534. Other similarly evaluated where, precisely instant criminal. De Angelo, Cir., 138 466; Grzesczak, 202, 137 538. tell what juror. know submitted special interrogatory, answer reflect assortment 'facts' believed juror reason declining manifest Evaluating requires speculation. proof crime overwhelming challenged. suggestion unrealistic. guarantee artificial approach. merely illusion justice scene 25 Court's effort enlist 456, aid conclusions reached is, view, unwarranted. halted completion unexpectedly invoked privilege self-incrimination testify. Upon motion prosecutor, declared. retrial, convicted, affirmed. Whatever take correctness decision, holding expanded cover situation here. obvious difference involve juries. went jury. however, ask expected Instead, proceeded turned error. To convict litigating employ fails meet standard required 26 DOUGLAS, whom BLACK concurs, 27 recently stated 190, 79 225, virtue protection forced 'run gantlet' charge. involving provides me every well, reversed.1 Hoag run gantlet twice. simple. Five men—Cascio, Yager—were together five. One indispensable element 'by violence putting fear,' provided defining N.J.Stat.Ann.1939, 2:166—1.2 critical alibi: time. acquitted. Then remaining individuals. transaction, unlike Burton 202 344, 378, 688, 697, 1057, indivisible. same.3 central same, for, Heher, dissenting, '* * assaults simultaneous, operating alike felonious endeavor time.' 510, 635. canvassed same. alibi tendered more. selfsame introduced. convicted. 30 crucial Since placed participant, protected occurring time.4 31 occurred. Having successfully, compelled again.5 Section 2:166—1 Revised Statutes indicted, provided: 'Any person shall forcibly another, money personal goods chattels, value whatever, guilty *.' section subsequently repealed re-enacted. N.J.Stat.Ann.1953, 2A:141—1. Article I, par. 11, Constitution 'No shall, offense.' clanse case: 'Assuredly prosecutors aware prevent government unduly harassing accused, confident resort unfairly accomplish indirectly interdiction precludes.' 561—562, 577. Horack, Multiple Consequences Single Criminal Act, Minn.L.Rev. 805; Kirchheimer, Offense Jeopardy, Yale L.J. 513; Gershenson, Res Judicata Successive Prosecutions, Brooklyn L.Rev. 12. Rules force 1952 '(Rule) 2:4—15 Joinder Offenses (now Rule 3:4—7): 'Two more accusation charged, high misdemeanors character acts transactions connected parts plan.' 2:5—4 Trial Indictments Accusations Together 3:5—6): accusations defendants, one, accusation.' occurred 1950. 24, absconded parole York. arrested November prison where remained until January 12, transferred jail meantime, Galiardo. together, 1952. Following complete sentence, reacquired extradition 1954. October 18, 1954, next term Court, session summer months. appears substantial portion elapsing prior accounted incarceration 440, 357 (dissenting opinion). reenacted form. N.J.Stats.Ann.1953, Gavieres 220 338, 421, 55 489, arose Philippines Act Congress applied Islands jeopardy. drunk indecent public place, ordinance Manila. insulting official, penal code Islands. words conviction, Harlan grounds while conduct resulted, other.' Id., 345, 423. like laws Philippine independence, deemed authoritative provision. 194—198, 227—229. 1912, court, almost circumstances, stated: committed. decided, tried. Should herein interposed, confronted incompatible verdicts, amount finding hand present, present.' 206, 538, 541. Or, Chitty said: 'It not, cases, degree, Chitty, (5th Am. ed. 1847), 455. effect Shepard, Conn. 54, 55—56, 'He assault, commit rape; punished. guilty; alleged, proved, rape. again; otherwise, punished fact.' Cooper, N.J.L. 361; 617; Roby, Pick. 504 504—505. result square murder degree degree. sentenced confinement life. Pursuant statute, appealed reversal death. agree face risk death penalty

Classification Label: 0