Legal Document

437 U.S. 82 98 Supreme Court Reporter 2187 57 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 65 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.John Arthur SCOTT. Number 76-1382. Argued Feb. 21, 1978. Decided June 14, Rehearing Denied Oct. 2, See 439 883, 99 226. Syllabus Respondent, indicted for federal drug offenses, moved before trial and twice during dismissal of two counts the indictment on ground that his defense had been prejudiced by preindictment delay. At close all evidence court granted respondent's motion. The Government sought to appeal dismissals under 18 Code KF62 § 3731 (1976 ed.), which allows from a district court's an except where Double Jeopardy Clause Fifth Amendment prohibits further prosecution. Appeals, concluding barred prosecution, dismissed appeal, relying versus Jenkins, 420 358, 95 1006, 43 250. In case Court, following principle underlying with its resources power should not be allowed make repeated attempts convict individual alleged offense, held that, whether or after jeopardy attached amounted acquittal merits, no right because "further proceedings some sort, devoted resolution factual issues going elements offense charged, would have required upon reversal remand." Held : Where defendant himself seeks terminated without any submission either judge jury as guilt innocence, successful effort do so does offend Clause, hence is ed.). supra, overruled. Pp. 87-101. (a) judgment conviction, insufficiency support verdict, Burks States, 1, 2141, 1 bar prosecution same charge. A acquittal, based verdict guilty ruling insufficient convict, may appealed terminates when second necessitated reversal. 87-92. (b) final determination innocence has made declare mistrial motion own initiative only if "there manifest necessity act, ends public justice otherwise defeated," Perez, 9 Wheat. 579, 580, 6 L.Ed. 165, but successfully avoid prior conclusion mistrial, d Such deemed deliberate election part forgo valued determined first trier fact. Dinitz, 424 600, 609, 96 1075, 1080, 47 267. 92-94. (c) least in cases, "attached" treated basis declaration even though require leading issue see Lee 432 23, 97 53 80, Court's growing experience appeals calls re-examination rationale Jenkins light Lee; Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 564, 1349, 51 642; other recent expositions Clause. 94-95. (d) situation such instant one, chooses assertion failed out against him, legal claim Government's him must fail it might satisfy fact he was beyond reasonable doubt, deliberately choosing seek termination suffers injury cognizable permitted trial-court favoring defendant. guards oppression, relieve consequences voluntary choice. 95-101. 544 Federal Reporter, 2nd 903, reversed remanded. Andrew L. Frey, Washington, D. C., petitioner. William C. Marietti, Muskegon, Mich., respondent. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. On March 5, 1975, respondent, member police force charged three-count distribution various narcotics. Both District Western Michigan, trial, respondent dismiss concerned transactions took place preceding September, evidence, Although did explain reasons dismissing count, explicitly concluded "presented sufficient proof prejudice respect Count I. App. Pet. Certiorari 8a. submitted third count jury, returned guilty. 2 Appeals Sixth Circuit. That court, our 250 (1975), Amendment, therefore appeal. 903 (1976). review this regard count. We certiorari give consideration applicability orders granting motions terminate verdict. now reverse. 3 * problem presented could arisen century existence. long taken view criminal case, absent explicit statutory authority. Sanges, 144 310, 12 36 445 (1892). authority provided until enactment Criminal Act, Act Mar. 1907, h. 2564, 34 Statutes-at-Large 1246, writ error decision "the invalidity, construction statute founded." Our over ensuing years ordinarily focused intricacies amendments.1 1971, however, Congress adopted current language permitting indictment, "except shall lie double clause Constitution prosecution." Soon thereafter, remarked footnote more optimism than prescience "[t]he end problems finally sight." Weller, 401 254, 255 n. 91 602, 604, 28 26 (1971). For 1971 amendment debate cases; simply shifted focus scope meaning 4 encounter new statute, we "Congress intended remove barriers allow whenever permit." Wilson, 332, 337, 1013, 1018, 232 (1975). Since up point subject restrictions independent previous cases construing proved little assistance determining prohibit detailed canvass history principles English American law led us conclude primarily "directed at threat multiple prosecutions," posed "where those trial." Id., 342, S.Ct., 1021. accordingly U.S., 370, remand."2 5 If correct statement law, decision, bound do, likelihood affirmed.3 Yet, assessment Serfass 377, 1055, 265 occurred three Terms ago, vastly reased exposure facets convinced wrongly decided. It placed unwarrantedly great emphasis defendant's decided empaneled try include grounds unrelated innocence. overrule thus reverse case. II origin are hardly matter dispute. generally 339-340, 1019-1020; Green 355 184, 187-188, 78 221, 223-224, 199 (1957); id., 200, 230 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). constitutional provision common-law pleas autrefois acquit, pardon. These prevented retrial person who previously acquitted, convicted, pardoned offense. As described purpose prohibition jeopardy: 7 "The idea, one deeply ingrained Anglo-American system jurisprudence, State thereby subjecting embarrassment, expense ordeal insecurity, well enhancing possibility innocent found guilty." Green, 223. 8 historical purposes necessarily general nature, their application come abound often subtle distinctions cannot means traced original referred above. Part difficulty arises development protections defendants since adoption Bill Rights. time adopted, were easily applied, most prosecutions proceeded judgment, neither nor adverse Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, 22, 84. unquestionably final, raised 10 certain certificate division circuit instigation April 29, 1802, 31, 6, 159. 1889 then capital cases. 1889, 113, 25 656.4 Only become necessary deal challenge verdicts 11 And, very presenting issues, Ball, 163 662, 16 1192, 41 300 (1896), established adhered ever since. Three persons tried together murder; acquitted. This convictions, finding fatally defective, Ball 140 118, 761, 35 377 (1891), whereupon again. convicte they again here. precluded acquitted trial5 convicted earlier proceeding. disposed objection almost peremptorily: "Their plea former conviction sustained, sued themselves sentence them reversed, ordered dismissed. . [I]t quite clear defendant, procures set aside, anew another offence convicted." 671-672, 1195. 13 firmly precludes subsequent jeopardy, shed consistently Because faced question unusual circumstances, present Kepner 195 100, 24 797, 49 114 (1904). arose Philippine Islands, expressly applicable Congress. traditional procedure de novo reversing resulting remarked: 14 instance, having jurisdiction accused, guilty; appellate put ." 133, 806.6 15 More 50 later, Fong Foo 369 141, 671, 629 (1962), reviewed issuance mandamus First Circuit instructing vacate judgments acquittal. indicating agreement entered erroneou ly, nonetheless 143, 672. last Term, relied these precedents 642 (1977), acquit pursuant Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 29 remand. quoting 1195, stated: "Perhaps fundamental rule jurisprudence '[a] reviewed, otherwise, putting [a defendant] violating Constitution.' " 571, 1354. These, then, least, venerable jurisprudence. poses reversal.7 What seem superficially disparity rules governing liability explainable reference illustrate, attaches particular significance To permit however mistaken been, unacceptably high risk Government, superior resources, wear down "even innocent, 188, hand, stand invoked upset act governmental oppression sort protect. common sense pithily, elegantly, expressed words McLean Keen, Cases 1789:1880 Page 686, 15,510 (CC Ind.1839). He vigorously rejected prohibited setting aside "guarantees being hung, protect danger 690. III 17 primary integrity Crist Bretz, 28, 33, 2156, 2159, also developed body g arding separate related interest avoiding made. interests involved different situations: first, declares mistrial; second, favorably Atlantic When invariably contemplates prosecutor will proceed notwithstanding jeopardy. 30, 2146, 80 (1977). party initiative. there conclusive jeopardy; passing propriety behest motion, balanced completed tribunal summoned sit him," Downum 372 734, 736, 83 1033, 1034, 100 (1963), insuring meted offenders. 19 came 165 (1824), declared jury's inability reach said judges mistrials "whenever, opinion, taking circumstances into consideration, defeated." 580. Arizona 434 497, 824, 54 717 content term "manifest necessity." like Downum, supra,8 noted discretion exercised careful Perez. 514-516, 836. 20 Where, offended "[A] assumed barrier reprosecution, prosecutorial judicial error." Jorn, 400 470, 485, 547, 557, 27 543 (1971) (opinion Harlan, J.). important retain control course followed event err r." 267 But actions provoke requests substantial burdens imposed prosecutions." 611, 1081. B 21 turn relationship between reprosecution obtained favor Unlike typical obviously wishes reinstate face ruling, court. 22 noted, makes appealability favorable depend regardless character midtrial termination, However, Lee, institute indictment. "functionally indistinguishable mistrial." 2146. Thus, demonstrated mistrial. 23 delay produced establish Respondent Scott points correctly chosen grant holding undeniably favor; bars convinces re-examine Linen, IV perceptions ante, 87: 'The insecurity .' 187, Upon fuller while entirely appropriate can expanded situations responsible t true truth pardon, core area protected recognized Sanabria 54, 2170, 43, once subjected far cry willing continue production show elected scarcely picture all-powerful state relentlessly pursuing insisted instead imprisonment, doubt. judge's characterization action classification action." 478 7, 554 J.), citing Sisson, 399 267, 290, 90 2117, 2129, 608 (1970). 1354; 336, 1018. Despite contentions, "is facts outside indictment," 348, 1024, charged," Rather, judge, whatever label, actually represents [in favor], not, 1355. returns enters "it plain evaluated legally sustain conviction." 572, 1355.9 holds "failure proof," 16, 2149, requiring submit rebut essentially insanity, entitled jury. entrapment, notion punishment committed proscribed offense," Russell, 411 423, 435, 93 1637, 1644, 366 (1973), satisfaction provide adequate justification acts.10 "necessarily lack culpability," post, 106 (BRENNAN, dissenting), existing law; result erroneous evidentiary rulings interpretations principles," ibid., affects accuracy determination, alter essential character. By contrast, although criminally culpable, punished supposed violation.11 30 think adopt doctrine "waiver" Green.12 murder degree act; avoided persuading undertook persuade him. 31 reason treating aborted differently 484, 556 J.): 32 "[I]n [second] deprived option go and, perhaps, dispute acting consent, aborts proceeding, 'valued tribunal.' 33 reasoning applies pari passu obtaining obtains "deprived" jury; "one complete opportunity violated laws." 509, 832. No invaded manner defendant.13 obvious hat believe pressed too concept "defendant's tribunal." Wade Hunter, 336 684, 689, 69 834, 837, 974 (1949). recognize stare decisis, conscious admonition Brandeis: involving Constitution, correction through legislative practically impossible, overruled decisions. bows lessons better reasoning, recognizing process error, fruitful physical sciences, function." Burnet Coronado Oil & Gas 285 393, 406-408, 52 443, 448, 76 815 (1932) (dissenting opinion). 37 Here, experience" indicate requested significantly advance assuring each just merits "enhancing Accordingly, contrary 38 cause remanded proceedings. 39 ordered. 40 BRENNAN, whom WHITE, MARSHALL, STEVENS join, dissenting. evaluation Judge unjustifiable preclude Due Process Clause—his prejudice. Under controlled today, prohibited, lie. would, "acquittal"—i. e., "a adduced relating case." 575, 1357, (1977) (citations omitted). Indeed, characterized. amount "acquittal," charged." 1013. reaffirmed Term (1977): "Where ground, Clause."1 42 today overrules Lee. While reaffirming "acquittal" reversals trials, accused. implements fashioning restrictive definition heretofore followed—i. resolution, offense"—and holds, explanation, definition, "acquitted" prejudicial gave charges contained one. N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions dissent. announced vital implementation values Clause; indeed, follows reaffirms. attempt draw distinction "true acquittals" simply, unsupportable logic policy. Equally fundamental, indefensibly adopts overly "acquittal." Its moreover, sharp contrast incapable principled application. vividly evident preaccusation violative due process, insanity entrapment. Ante, 97-98. Why latter raise bar, retrial? ventures persuasive explanation. thousands apply today's similar "affirmative defenses" left meaningful guidance, confusion decision. 44 reaffirms "most jurisprudence": how erroneous, proviso ed.),2 retrial.3 major premise difference magnitude "acquittals" dismissals, "unrelated innocence." flawed. It, misconceives whole retrials. suggests, safeguard determinations innocence; rather, accused threatens intolerable interference policy trials. Moreover, terms practical operation adversary so-called acquittal" 45 effect protecting accused's finality determinations, objective. permits (1975) (whether necessitate retrial). fails sufficiently appreciate, agony risks attendant undergoing single ibid. increases financial emotional burden prolongs period unresolved accusation wrongdoing, enhances convicted.4 503-504, 829, (1978); (1957). Society's "willingness limit proceeding vindicate enforcement laws" bespeaks society's recognition gross unfairness undergo strain 479, 554, policies mandate afforded defendant5 barred. acquittals understood larger principle. 46 Judgments normally bench factfinder's controlling principles, culpability; induced defense. Yet trial. repeatedly retrial, has, course, impairs enforcing laws. acknowledged o release benefited "error, irrational behavior, judge," 574, 1356; seeUnited 352, 1026, nevertheless circumstances. rather untoward designed prevent. guilt, strengthen weaknesses presentation, anxiety 48 basic applied factfinder, presentation 29. 43; supra; (1962). egregious regarded resulted errors judge. 1. teach convicting participation every dissuade committing logical extension never represent absolute sense; indeed not—rest assumption finder admissible factually charged. prove culpability enter ban trials compelling. mattered constituted formal critical obtained, attached, did, embodied charged" 1013; retreat theory "ground innocence" somehow stands footing whose creates entered. untenable. prohibiting retrials rest i sense. rule, decisions egregiously retrials, see, e. g., supra (acquittal many witnesses testified); erroneous. equally heavy personal So situation, will, reversal, obtain benefit shore weak advantages forbid. retrying vary depending favor. reject plainly suggestion deprive "its 'one laws,' 832,6 differ acquittals." "complete opportunity" virtue trial.7 significant, best purely formal. Many consequence innocence: r specting excluding reliable evidence. illustrates point. Sanabria, motions, series began culminated exclusion guilt. remaining insufficient. erected reached precipitated "voluntary choice" narrow 55 Here characterizes itself rendered excluded relevant remained take pro forma step Surely, possess significance. does, suggests remedied violation entering Rule confirms draws wholly arbitrary, bearing conceivable 56 compounds damage repudiation done fabric law. Not unduly restrictive, literally proves delay, host law—e. speedy limitations—operates imposition defendants, showing acts. Like doctrines, violates considered apart '[e]vents [can demonstrate] actual prejudice.' Lovasco, 431 783, 789, 2044, 2048, 752 Marion, 404 307, 326, 92 455, 466, 468 (1971); MacDonald, 435 850, 858-859, 1547, 1551-1552, (1978). 58 therefore, properly, deferred pretrial renewed because, evaluating ability constitute denial 59 feature appears 'a elemen charged,' 97, narrower enjoys significant quoted company tied serve all-encompassing purposes. case," 1357 omitted), accepted definition. 1065, 290 19, 2130, clearly encompasses pertaining 60 responsive perhaps objectionable could—because trial—have 394, 1065,8 ended ruling—like case—which Notably, explains why justify 61 dwell demonstrates, what applied. pertinent question, thus, addresses: Why, vel non "factual charged"? answer cf. Patterson New York, 197, 2319, 281 states defenses insanity9 entrapment crimes—will "acquittals." 62 How ' insanity" "not entrapment" erect evidence—that delay" prosecution? None crime, availability depends fundamentally, presents evils offers satisfactory explanation treatment. concerning "factual" whereas indictments "legal judgments," ante 98, Consideration requires standards likely entry test. address, grounds—e. entrapped shown supplied contraband selling, Hampton 425 1646, 113 (1976)—should possibly observation justifications acts"—and unlike reflects parlance wise classes consequences. 63 Whether ipse dixit unlawful defensible, enormous portends clear. particularly appealing principle—in addition, protection values—was simplicity. Any order contemplating automatically retrial. courts decide, minimal guidance terminations affirmative defenses. acts arise unconstitutional not. difficult apply. extent "predisposed" commit justification." jurisdictions, Park, Entrapment Controversy, Minn.L.Rev. 163, 171-176 (1976), device deter officials engaging reprehensible techniques. Is jurisdictions? Are it? And defenses, e routinely motions: limitations?10 Ironically, seems done, few instances so, limited disfavored doctrines 64 regrettable introduce crystal introduction tolerable manifestly fashions arbitrary precisely affirm Appeals. thorough account Harlan's 291-296, 2130-2133, Wilson later terms: "[D]ismissals (as opposed mistrials) stage largely temporal considerations—if factfinding proceedings, reprosecuted, could." 36, (REHNQUIST, concurring). contends here certainty 367, 1011-1012. Two "infamous" crimes. 3, 1891, 517, 827. Vaux's Case, Co.Rep. 44a, Eng.Rep. 992 (K.B. 1590), refused initial conviction. Again, greater measure known Constitution. altered task Illinois Somerville, 410 458, 1066, (1973). doing, contention Holmes dissent man 134, 806. went say: "If exceptions impossible maintain prisoner retried mistake favor, harm." 135, 807. Holmes' continuing greatly simplified appeals, majority 1006. needed remand: "When thereafter permitted. improper trial; corrected remand verdict." 365, 1011. repudiates assumption. 75, 2184; 569-570, 1353-1354. 1963, This, too, available disapproved unnecessary mistrials, 506-508, nn. 21-23, 831, was, remains nothing short discharged giving indictment." Halsbury's Laws England, Law, Evidence, Procedure ¶ 242 (4th ed. 1976). difficulty, characterizing precise import analysis governed disposition turned "in favor," 365 1011, remand," occasion determine "an interpretation law," "resolved [controlling] respondent," 1012; 362 1009. Davis 160 469, 353, 499 (1895). construed concluded: "One takes human life actuated malice aforethought, life, wicked, depraved, malignant heart,' heart 'regardless society duty bent mischief' unless mind comprehend criminality wrong act." 357. other, validity regulating use prosecutions. 12.2(a). "can sense," 107 released laws, word, otherwise. distinguishing relate ultimate Stone Powell, 428 465, 490, 3037, 3050, 1067 implication former. second-degree murder, find first-degree murder. waive reaffirm [has] appeal." 189, 224. possible reconcile Wilson,, guilty, subsequently Most recently Ceccolini, 268, 1054, 268 (1978), approval: sensibly ruled suppress; merely reinstatement guilt." ----, 1057. Accord, Kopp, 429 121, 400, (1976); Rose, 26, Morrison, We, suggest response improper. marred error. prevails Finch 433 676, 2909, 1048 (applying stipulated facts); Section provides "dismissal" cites approval (1962); (1904); (1896). There number [the 223, affords second. litigant, advantage opportunity. uncommon change testimony, always subtly, 504 Carsey 129 U.S.App.D.C. 205, 208-209, 392 810, 813-814 (1967). "final accused," am, referring terminating "simply Similarly unpersuasive supported well-recognized succeeded distinguishes situations, both intervening undermined wash. author stated embrace labelled erects 86 2149. concurring), position label determinative. 392, 1064, week labels talismanic significance, unanimous contemplated mechanical formula. suggestion, 94, labeled face. equivalent parties it. 2145. Serfass, reserved knowingly raising 1065. inconsistent defendants. legitimate insanity. follow directed preceded implications jurisdictions providing bifurcated sanity. date crime disputed limitations could, probably along issue. Similarly, revealed limitation period, move

Classification Label: 0