Legal Document

493 U.S. 342 110 S.Ct. 668 107 L.Ed.2d 708 Reuben DOWLING, Petitionerv.UNITED STATES. No. 88-6025. Argued Oct. 4, 1989. Decided Jan. 10, 1990. Syllabus Petitioner Dowling was convicted of robbing a Virgin Islands bank while wearing ski mask and carrying small pistol. Relying on Federal Rule Evidence 404(b)—which provides that evidence other crimes, wrongs, or acts may be admissible against defendant for purposes than character evidence—the Government introduced at trial the testimony one Henry, who stated similarly masked armed had been two intruders entered her home weeks after robbery. Although acquitted charges in Henry case, believed Henry's description him strengthened its identification as robber linked to another individual thought implicated The District Court permitted introduction twice instructed jury about Dowling's acquittal limited purpose which being admitted. Appeals affirmed conviction, ruling that, although collaterally estopped by from offering inadmissible under Rules Evidence, admission harmless because it highly probable error did not prejudice Dowling. court declined apply more stringent standard Chapman v. California, 386 18, 24, 87 824, 828, 17 705 applicable constitutional errors Court's evidentiary dimension. Held: 1. violate collateral-estoppel component Double Jeopardy Clause. doctrine prohibits relitigating an issue ultimate fact has determined valid final judgment, Ashe Swenson, 397 436, 90 1189, 25 469 but does bar all circumstances later use simply relates alleged criminal conduct acquitted. Here, prior determine robbery case second required show beyond reasonable doubt man house. This decision is consistent with cases where this held preclude when presented subsequent action governed lower proof, United States One Assortment 89 Firearms, 465 354, 361-362, 104 1099, 1104-1105, 79 361; Lot Emerald Cut Stones States, 409 232, 235, 93 489, 492, 34 438. Even if burden proof serve avoid Clause, failed satisfy his demonstrating first he men home. Pp. 347-352. 2. due process test "fundamental fairness." Especially light judge's limiting instructions, fundamentally unfair, since free assess truthfulness significance testimony, court's authority exclude potentially prejudicial adequately addresses possibility such will create risk convict based inferences drawn conduct, inconsistent verdicts are constitutionally tolerable, tradition force person defend same accusation proceeding amply protected 352-354. 855 F.2d 114 (CA3 1988), affirmed. WHITE, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, filed dissenting opinion, MARSHALL STEVENS, joined, post, p. 354. Robert L. Tucker petitioner. Stephen Nightingale, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice WHITE Court. 1 At petitioner's various offenses arising out robbery, admitted 404(b) relating crime previously committing. We conclude neither Clause nor Due Process barred testimony. 2 * On afternoon July 8, 1985, pistol robbed First Pennsylvania Bank Frederiksted, St. Croix, Islands, taking over $7,000 cash teller, approximately $5,000 customer, personal travelers' checks. culprit ran bank, scurried around street momentarily, then commandeered passing taxi van. While driving away scene, pulled off mask. An eyewitness, slipped place, saw maskless identified petitioner, Other witnesses testified they seen hijacked van outside Frederiksted shortly 3 Following arrest, charged federal crimes 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), 2113(d), law. pleaded guilty charges. ended hung jury. He tried again convicted, Third Circuit reversed conviction appeal. Dowling, 814 134 (1987). After third trial, most counts; judge sentenced 70 years' imprisonment. 4 During Government, objection, called woman named Vena stand. Ms. knitted cutout eyes handgun had, together Delroy Christian, struggle ensued she unmasked intruder, whom Based incident, law burglary, attempted assault, weapons offenses, before case. 5 assertedly elicited purposes. First, gun similar worn carried Government's robber. Second, sought link day borrowed white Volkswagen friend. police officer partner come upon Christian parked front car door open into street; backseat. officers told close door, drove north. followed mile and, thereafter, received radio message robbed. theory friend were drive getaway bank. 6 Before opening statements, disclosed intention call explained rationale doing so, relying evidence. hearing, characterized probative circumstantial ruled 404(b). App. 24-25. When left stand, petitioner emphasized offered. Id., 28. reiterated admonition charge 29. 7 appeal, should have nevertheless conviction. (1988). Keller, 624 1154 (1980), incident 8 Alternatively, Evidence. noted we recently Huddleston 485 681, 108 1496, 99 771 (1988), "[i]n context, act relevant only can reasonably occurred actor." 689, 1501. found "when subject jury, 'that actor.' " F.2d, 122. also relied 403 because, Circuit's danger unfair outweighed value 9 Circuit, however, 122-124. explicitly standard, see (1967), according court, mistake merely 122-123. Having rejected objections, 124. 10 claims wrong offend Constitution therefore supra, harmless-error standard.1 granted certiorari consider contention both Clauses Fifth Amendment. 489 1051, 109 1309, 103 579 (1989). II A. 11 There no claim here involving further prosecution present inadmissibility 12 In (1970), recognized incorporates collateral estoppel. group six playing poker basement State unsuccessfully prosecuted men. Six later, players. Applying estoppel implicit Ashe's holding precluded charging offense. 445-446, S.Ct., 1195. defined providing once cannot litigated between parties any future lawsuit." 443, 1194. foreclosed verdict could meant unable bandits. A impermissible reached directly contrary conclusion. See id., 445, 13 contends principle, introducing disagree unlike situation much concedes, decline extend Swenson circumstances, would it, otherwise 14 For purposes, assume sake argument established there whether robbery.2 But introduce point demonstrate doubt: 404(b), mentioned earlier, U.S., 1501, Because might home, even believe committed inapposite. 15 Our proof. 361 (1984), example, unanimously agreed owner's dealing firearms without license rem forfeiture those firearms, though appropriate concluded underlying civil proceeding, defendant's wrongdoing: 16 "[The did] prove innocent; proves existence guilt. . [T]he negate preponderance [the defendant] engaged unlicensed business. It clear difference relative burdens actions precludes application estoppel." 1104. 438 (1972), offense "the Helvering Mitch- ell, 303 391, 397, 58 630, 632, 82 L.Ed. 917 (1938), likewise observed "[t]he degree res judicata." thus agree using reasons find merit common-law bars violated B 19 challenged represented determination previous judgment general verdict, courts must 'examine record [the] account pleadings, evidence, charge, matter, rational grounded seeks foreclose consideration.' 444, 1194 (citation omitted). Courts placed whose relitigation actually decided proceeding. Citron, 853 1055, 1058 (CA2 1988); Ragins, 840 1184, (CA4 Gentile, 816 1157, 1162 (CA7 1987); Baugus, 761 506, 508 (CA8 1985); Mock, 640 629, 631, n. (CA5 1981); Hewitt, 663 1381, 1387 (CA11 Lasky, 600 765, 769 (CA9), cert. denied, 444 979, 100 480, 62 405 (1979). reason depart majority rule case.3 20 clue issues earlier discussion prosecutor, attorney, Judge took place during hearing 18-25. Arguing lawyer pointed breaking judge, presided recalled "was identification." 21. prosecutor contended disputed identity, rather claimed taken allegedly "merely came retrieve money house." Ibid. made statement "Mr. presence house seriously contested defense. Mr. I don't think stand." number possible explanations jury's trial. As stands, nothing persuasively indicates question identity favor trial; oral argument, conceded much. Tr. Oral Arg. 16. result, III 21 Besides arguing unconstitutional recognize like involved potential unfairly spend time matters considered question, acceptable deal abuse through nonconstitutional sources Evidence,4 type so extremely violates conceptions justice." Lovasco, 431 783, 790, 97 2044, 2048, 52 752 (1977). 22 Beyond specific guarantees enumerated Bill Rights, operation. We, therefore, category infractions fairness" very narrowly. 2048; "Judges free, defining 'due process,' impose enforcement officials [their] 'personal private notions' fairness 'disregard limits bind judges their judicial function.' Rochin 165, 170, 72 205, 208, 96 183 (1952). [They] complained 'fundamental justice lie base our political institutions,' Mooney Holohan, 294 103, 112, 55 340, 341, 791 (1935), define 'the community's sense fair play decency,' 173, 210." 23 instructions provided hold merits kind condemnation. Plainly least circumstantially valuable proving 24 lists four why, him, unfair. suggests inherently unreliable. disagree: remained opportunity refute it. creates unacceptable basis conduct; possibility. Third, exclusion furthers desirable goal verdicts. do inconsistency obvious entail respect first. event, tolerable. Standefer 447 25, 1999, 2008, 64 689 (1980). 26 Fourth, argues contravenes government acknowledge tradition, device extending double jeopardy protection extend. IV 27 applied correct affirm Appeals. 28 ordered. 29 STEVENS join, dissenting. 30 rob Petitioner, already connection offenses. effectively forced acquitted, prohibited reverse remand consideration enunciated (1967). Therefore, respectfully dissent. 31 "The 'attaches particular acquittal.' DiFrancesco, 449 117, 129, 101 426, 433, 66 328 (1980) (quoting Scott, 437 82, 91, 98 2187, 2193, 57 65 (1978)). core attaches retrial "same offense" acquittal. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 564, 571, 1349, 1354, 51 642 Two unless each requires not. Blockburger 284 299, 304, 180, 182, 76 306 (1932). greater lesser included offense, Brown Ohio, 432 161, 168, 2221, 2226, 53 187 applies "egregiously erroneous foundation." Fong Foo 369 141, 143, 671, 672, 629 (1962) (per curiam ); Sanabria 54, 68-69, 2170, 2180-2181, 43 (1978). 32 According reflects institutional interest preserving finality judgments strong public protecting individuals governmental overreaching. 2225 ("Where successive prosecutions stake, [Double Clause] serves 'a policy benefit' ") Jorn, 400 470, 479, 91 547, 554, 543 (1971) (plurality opinion)). overriding concern "[t]o permit acquittal, however mistaken been, unacceptably high vastly superior resources, wear down defendant, 'even innocent guilty.' 2193 Green 355 184, 188, 78 221, 223-224, 199 (1957)). protects compelled "to live continuous state anxiety insecurity" retried "embarrassment, expense ordeal" actual reprosecution. Green, 187, 223. 33 These concerns clearly significantly expanded entitled 1195-1196. "means facts resolved Thus, addition offense," element presently "that To extent either factual favor, imposes thereby increases likelihood relies acquittal.1 35 refuses reasons. asserts carry More importantly, used Both conclusions rule. 36 proceeding." Ante, 350. summary conclusion bear invoking fails general. Since protect defendants overreaching, relitigate Ashe, verdicts, usually difficult precise route reasoning rests. By putting what "actually decided," essentially denies affirmatively contest put elements result excessively technical approach "would, course, amount rejection proceedings, every acquittal." Indeed, forcing choose forgoing protections abandoning defense denial raises grave concerns. 37 assuming properly mask, away. rested belief wide array "rationally conceivable." lacked requisite intent, still Neither comments "seriously contested" defense, 21, prosecutor's codefendant house, ibid., sufficient acquittal.2 facts, allowed 38 holds, excepts normal situations endorses exception doctrine; surprising unrealistic view risks imposed 39 notes, transaction defendant's] guilt." 361, 1104, (1984); (1972); Mitchell, (1938). However, remedial measures punishment. 362-366, 1104-1107; Helvering, 397-398, 632-33. never punish hinges punishment part acquitted.3 indicated contrary: 'It too late suggest [collateral estoppel] fully former reflect met higher exacted whole. .' Kramer, 289 909, 913 1961)). always distinction intended not, see, e.g., Halper, 490 435, 446-448, 1892, 1901-1902, 487 (1989) (Double fine punitive); Salerno, 481 739, 746-747, 2095, 2101, 95 697 (1987) (upholding Bail Reform Act 1984 regulatory punitive measure). (or quasi-criminal) context civil; acute.4 40 Whenever erroneously decide That heightened Cf. re Winship, 358, 363, 1068, 1072, 368 (1970) (reasonable-doubt "is prime instrument reducing convictions resting error"). reliability stem large inherent extrinsic "[o]ne dangers particularly great activity conviction; feel punished charged." Beechum, 582 898, 914 1978) (en banc) (citations "may lead jury] having charged, likely repeat it." participation low combined nature 41 response rebut response, underscores flaw reasoning: mount reduce defendant; Moreover, presenting burdensome defending Finally, makes easier affirmative offense.5 42 today adds powerful new weapon arsenal. ability benefits many able passage time, expense, some factor. Indeed discernible limit rule; these appears seems allow rely (despite acquittal) substantive conspiracy, 1195, (the requirement little until modern statutes gave prosecutors "spin startingly numerous series single transaction"). broadly justify order enhance sentence sentencing scheme less doubt. See, McMillan Pennsylvania, 477 79, 91-93, 106 2411, 2418-2419, 67 (1986) constitutionality requiring additional evidence). Only ignoring principles tip scales far prosecution's favor. deprives rightful end "blight suspicious aura surround crime." Wingate Wainwright, 464 209, 215 1972). hypertechnical naive challenge strict finding formed verdict. infra, Part II-B. notes party carries evidence's relevance. duty, establish resolve disagree. Relevancy threshold inquiry. relevancy require anticipate objections offered instance opposed seek terminate hopes difference. If anything, equities weigh direction: faces whereas, threatened illegitimate above, 403. 114, 122 urges error, affirming need pass validity Appeals' respect. often refer "evidentiary fact" distinguish (1970). 1154, 1159 1980). necessary 1195-1196 (since victim, victim). situation, contrast, fact, alone estop direct robber, intruder 27. invited infer different helps you determining [bank robbery]. that." Nothing ensured enough asking draw inference. cites support facts. Standefer, invoke principal accomplice. 2008. sparingly 22-24, 2007-2008, yet tried. implicated. implicated, outweigh cautiously Government. reasonable-doubt employed ensure accuracy defendants, definition, doubt, legally innocent. Unlike prosecutions, treated interests answer Wakefield, 278 N.W.2d 307, 308 (Minn.1979). ironic better off, counsel uncounseled capacity trials. Loper Beto, 473, 483, 92 1014, 1019, 374 (1972) (impeachment); Tucker, 404 447, 589, 591, 592 (sentencing enhancement); Burgett Texas, 389 109, 115, 88 258, 262, 319 (1967) (substantive instruct sufficiently guarantee give weight acquittal; disregard mistake.

Classification Label: 0