Legal Document

468 U.S. 317 104 S.Ct. 3081 82 L.Ed.2d 242 Robert D.H. RICHARDSON, Petitionerv.UNITED STATES. No. 82-2113. Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 20, 1984. Decided June 29, Syllabus Petitioner was indicted on three counts federal narcotics violations. At his trial, jury acquitted him one count but unable to agree others. The District declared a mistrial as remaining and scheduled retrial. then moved bar retrial, claiming that it would violate Double Jeopardy Clause Fifth Amendment. denied motion, Appeals dismissed petitioner's appeal from ruling for lack jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Held: 1. raised colorable double jeopardy claim appealable While consideration this require canvas sufficiency evidence at first fact alone does not prevent Court's order denying being appealable. Pp. 320-322. 2. On merits, however, regardless petitioner has no valid claim. protection by its terms applies only if there been some event, such an acquittal, terminates original jeopardy. Neither failure reach verdict nor trial court's declaration following hung is event Like defendant, Government entitled resolution case jury. 322-326. 226 U.S.App.D.C. 342, 702 F.2d 1079 (1983), reversed. Allan M. Palmer, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Michael W. McConnell, respondent, pro hac vice, special leave Court. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion 1 trying several counts, these indictment set them down second Amendment because sufficient convict had presented trial. We now reverse jurisdictional determination proceed address merits find unavailing, since lacks necessary predicate, having termination 2 in Columbia two distributing controlled substance, violation 21 841(a)(1), conspiring distribute 846. Twice—at close Government's chief before submission jury—he unsuccessfully judgment acquittal ground failed introduce warrant finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt.1 substantive violation, counts. which point renewed motion based legal insufficiency evidence. In addition, argued time retrial barred Amendment.2 both motions appealed. 3 Circuit want jurisdiction. (1983). reasoned review depended upon appealability Because latter final 1291, could be reviewed fell within collateral doctrine enunciated Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 541, 69 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). court held "anything collateral," thus lacked appellate U.S.App.D.C., 344-345, F.2d, 1081-1082. Since entirely reviewing evidence, concluded present point.3 granted certiorari decision Appeals, 464 890, 231, 78 224 conflict with reached Third McQuilkin, 673 681 (1982),4 implications below administration criminal justice. 4 contends our decisions Abney States, 431 651, 97 2034, 52 651 (1977), Burks 437 1, 98 2141, 57 (1978), he interlocutory legally go Burks, involved issue review, conviction. But arose context appeal. There we denial defendant's pretrial dismiss grounds "collateral order" Despite strong congressional policy embodied 1291 against appeals cases, DiBella 369 121, 126, 654, 657, 7 614 (1962), met three-part test established supra, contested very power bring person right significantly impaired were deferred until after said: "Obviously, [this] aspec[t] guarantee's protections lost accused forced 'run gauntlet' taken; even acquitted, or, convicted, conviction ultimately reversed grounds, endure designed prohibit. Consequently, defendant avoid exposure thereby enjoy full Clause, challenge must reviewable subsequent occurs." U.S., 662, S.Ct., 2041 (footnote omitted) (emphasis original). 5 contends, agreed, meet three-party case. It argues inevitably involves evaluation therefore completely charge Cf. Abney, 660, 2040. To dispose claim, have conclude introduced insufficient matter law This canvassing record indistinguishable assessment conviction, and, course, heart merits. therefore, are view may 6 All conceded, yet think collateral-order applied should read so narrowly type asserted here. seeks entered component separate canvass understandably expresses concern nature disrupt allowing consistent admonition words "final decision" "practical rather than technical construction." Cohen, 546, 1225. Petitioner's ended rescheduled effort interrupt or delay proceedings during empaneled advisement relating Moreover, indicated depends least "colorable," MacDonald, 435 850, 862, 1547, 1553, 56 18 "frivolous claims former jeopardy" weeded out summary procedures, n. 8, 2042, 8. Head, 697 1200, 1204 (CA4 1982). These limitations, together continuing requirement appealed "final" provide adequate insurance evils fears. Thus, hold 8 Turning reject it. He asserts establish doubt tried again bases contention do resulted sweeping change us hold. once obtained unreversed Clause. Id., 18, 2150. overruled prior Bryan 338 552, 70 317, 94 335 (1950), successfully sought reversal 9 did deal situation declares jury's inability verdict. reliance can supported laid overriding principle applicable across board situations totally different facts arose. quite clear extend procedural setting Where, here, resulting jury, simply rule might See Justices Boston Municipal Lydon, 466 294, 308-310, 1805, 1813-1814, 80 311 (1984). 10 dealing application prohibition placing twice own sources logic. 160 years, Story Perez, Wheat. 579, 165 (1824), instance "manifest necessity" permitted judge terminate retry "the ends public justice otherwise defeated." 580, 165. occasion examine principles mistrials reasons other agree, whether prosecution, see Illinois Somerville, 410 458, 1066, 35 425 (1973), Oregon Kennedy, 456 667, 102 2083, 72 416 (1982); Dinitz, 424 600, 96 1075, 47 267 (1976). Nevertheless, constantly adhered "hung jury" Logan 144 263, 297-298, 12 617, 627-628, 36 429 (1892). Explaining conclusion Arizona 434 497, 824, 54 717 11 "[W]ithout exception, courts discharge genuinely deadlocked submit accords recognition society's interest giving prosecution complete opportunity those who violated laws." 509, 832. unwilling uproot settled line cases extending reasoning guilty, where Thirty-five years ago said Wade Hunter, 336 684, 688-689, 834, 836-837, 974 (1949): 13 "The double-jeopardy provision Amendment, mean every put competent tribunal free fails end judgment. Such create insuperable obstacle many semblance oppressive practices aimed. unforeseeable circumstances arise making completion impossible, purpose protect society guilty crimes frequently frustrated again. . What enough show valued completed particular instances subordinated public's fair trials just judgments." 14 governing readily reconciled when recognize Court, supra; Price Georgia, 398 323, 329, 90 1757, 1761, 26 300 (1970). attached here sworn, Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 564, 569, 1349, 1353, 51 642 argument necessarily assumes judicial terminated allowed assert 15 proposition irreconcilable Perez Logan, authority Our holding purposes, equivalent acquittal; obviously establish, consistently acquittal.5 Holmes' aphorism "a page history worth volume logic" sensibly reaffirm subjected. Government, like discharged agree. Regardless retrial.6 16 Accordingly, question jurisdiction, correct 17 ordered. BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, concurring part dissenting part. 19 substance. constitutionally sustain perhaps due alleged inadequacy dismissed. As result today's decision, will same new notwithstanding that, assume, law. seems me "be subject offence life limb." Const., Amdt. 5. Yet despite appearances, really dismissal imminent all. my judgment, common sense incompatible. 20 I turns whether, sufficiency-of-the-evidence valid, barred. Relying "retrial 'hung jury' Clause," ante, 324, jeopardy," 325. reasoning, view, improperly ignores realities relies instead formalistic concept "continuing jeopardy." 315-316, 1817-1818, (1984) (BRENNAN, J., judgment). Apparently, approach, actual "terminate" receive one—because happens irrational lawless factfinder cannot verdict—is worse off demands Indeed, mistakes Rumsey, 467 203, 211, 2305, 2310-2311, 81 164 believe paradoxical faithful repeatedly reaffirmed "precludes State prove so." Hudson Louisiana, 450 40, 45, 5, 101 970, 973, 67 30 (1981). 314, 1816. Instead, explained greater length common-sense approach requires ask, first, initial proceeding objectively ended, second, Constitution. 320-322, 1819-1821. answering question, look fundamental policies "namely repeated 'to embarrassment, expense ordeal compe[l] live state anxiety insecurity, well enhancing possibility though innocent found guilty.' posture objective leaves position resumption implicate policies." 320, 1820 (quoting Green 355 184, 187-188, 221, 223, 199 (1957)). Employing analysis, little trouble concluding verdict, declared, come end. An presumably much plainly kinds risks costs intended 503-504, 829, (1978).1 "terminated" petitioner.2 22 concluding, longstanding rule, emphasized necessity," mistrial. constitutional inquiry; [in contexts] justify subjecting certain literal language Clause." 308-309, 1820. Until seek pretending all "continuation" proceeding. ibid. example, unusual permit order. not, evade "terminates" "[u]nlike automatically without finally resolving charges accused." 505, 830 added). short, distinct permissible. 23 heavily beside point. is, true, explains, long " 'that trial.' Ante, 3085 832). demonstrates objection prohibited That 15-16, 2149, contrast case, insufficient. underlying indeed most one, defendant. When complain unfairness chance, interests finality, shared society, strongly outweigh ibid.; also 829. less recognized judge. 24 Tibbs Florida, 457 31, 2211, 652 (1982), unless obtain successors become illusory. weight Burks. response fear expressed dissent mask reversals characterizing explained: 25 "We Jackson [v. Virginia, 443 307, 99 2781, 61 560 (1979),] Due Process forbids any persuade rational doubt. words, sets lower limit definition evidentiary sufficiency. limit, belief judges faithfully honor their obligations enforce laws, persuades undermine Burks." 2220 omitted). presupposes bars prosecution's proof trial—even judicially undeclared. If so, "masking" problem discussed irrelevant: remand addressing never able id., 51, 2223 (WHITE, dissenting). 27 sum, sense. A insufficient, law, "colorable" judge's immediately And, finally, decides inadequate, further offense STEVENS, dissenting. 29 dispositive judgment.1 appealable; presented. * After indictment, filed motions: (1) support conviction; (2) "entitled judgments counts," App. 15a. Friday, September 11, 1981, written motion. 18a. promptly notice described "denied implication jeop. claim." Record 28. Monday, 13, colloquy counsel, agreed [that] hinged [on for] Judgment Acquittal" implicitly.2 31 Two questions Appeals. Judge Wilkey's correctly character answered both. First, separately consider perfectly face decision," exception final-judgment (1949).3 32 Second, equally granted, basis dependent contingent validity motion—the "hinged" first; implicitly rejected second. principal appealable, difficult understand how either right, convert nonappealable, nonfinal into 33 Plainly substance "color" identify terminating constituting rested "entitlement" order, stronger favorable would, Without ruling, arguable II 34 states "petitioner's way record. Rather, "entitled" granting acquittal. entered, argue itself constituted jeopardy, continue. declaring If, deliberated few minutes prosecutor, fearful adverse persuaded fairly they deadlocked—in 505-508, 830-831, (1978)—the tantamount III Although precedential acts vacuum cleaner couched violation. carefully noted "it true finality traditionally considered indispensable review," 659, 2040, orders rule. begin with, already survive analysis. More important, discussion Cohen's collateral-issue prong supports today. stated: 37 "Moreover, to, separable from, accused's impending i.e., charged. arguing makes whatsoever him. Nor suppression plans use obtaining contesting hale elements independent innocence. matters embraced truly 'affect, affected by, case.' 659-660, 2040 1225) (citations 38 began broad general reference claim," specific highlights differences between Here, challenging him; insufficient-evidence innocence; affect although broadly written, "that 1291." 322. 39 essence relieved additional soon entry more reason allow immediate recently similar context, availability premature give defendants "every incentive eventual punishment, leverage plea negotiations." 334-335, 1827, "[t]he speed efficiency process quickly eroded [interlocutory appeals] intervened trials." Ibid. "[U]ndue litigiousness leaden-footed [is] particularly damaging conduct cases." 124, 656, (1962); Cobbledick 309 325, 60 540, 84 783 (1940). Further, while postponement 3, cause hardship through reviewed, Wilkey observed,4 far grievous reviewed. 326. 40 affirm entire attack properly respectfully dissent. drug transaction, alone, argues, conspiracy. Alternatively, sales took place, isolated conspiracy inferred occurrence. depends, excluding statements made co-conspirator implicating scheme. light argument. text reads: "[N]or shall Scalia dissented, held, raise meritorious Circuits Ellis, 646 132, 135 1981); Becton, 632 1294, 1297 (CA5 1980), cert. denied, 454 837, 141, 117 Of 44-45, (1981), principle. 2147, citing Fong Foo 671, 629 Kepner 195 100, 797, 49 114 (1904). follows logically today longer possible Jones Barnes, 463 745, 751-752, 103 3308, 3312-3313, 77 987 (1983); Florida Dept. Treasure Salvors, Inc., 458 670, 694-695, 3304, 3319-3320, 73 1057 (1982). assertion future, rights need interpose begin. two-tier system (1984), assumption influence favor. expectation maximum dedication resources proceeding, deprive ability take strategic advantage knowledge another factfinding opportunity, engender significant degree course traditional system, mistrial, significance context. 320-321, By identifying terminated, determine ripe imminent. "contest[s] trial." 320. 2041, (1977). regard bewildering. discussing "[p]etitioner's retrial." post, 335-337 (STEVENS, Yet, rules subjected." experience constitute purposes purposes. follows: "Whether whose commencement Brief I. "Mr. Palmer: Yes, Your Honor. Just housekeeping matter, Acquittal. "Having Acquittal fortiori, assume you Court: No about So, record, 11th, deny also? Yes." 20a. "To tests. fully controverted issue; 'leave "open, unfinished inconclusive." ' 'simply "step toward disposition case" '; resolve 'an action asserted.' Finally, involve important "lost, probably irreparably," awaited difficulty applying district Richardson's third requirements Cohen. circuits noted, 'a non-collateral issue.' ultimate crime chooses committed crime. Richardson guilty. anything upcoming (i.e., guilt, determined evidence); rather, 'step [which will] merged judgment,' covered exception. "Further, refuse time. Three (which jury) appealing government concedes time, noting 'in [Richardson] [the claim] conviction.' Therefore, requirements, entered." 344, 1079, 1081 (1983) (footnotes 346-347, 30, 1083-1084, 30.

Classification Label: 0