Legal Document

432 U.S. 23 97 Supreme Court Reporter 2141 53 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 80 Phillip Jerome LEE, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. Number 76-5187. Argued April 25, 1977. Decided June 13, Syllabus After the prosecutor's opening statement in petitioner's bench trial for theft violation of Assimilative Crimes Act and applicable Indiana statute, counsel moved to dismiss information on ground that it did not allege specific intent as required by statute. The court tentatively denied motion subject further study, whereupon outlined defense object going forward with trial. At close evidence court, though observing guilt had been proved beyond any reasonable doubt, granted dismiss. Thereafter, petitioner was indicted same crime convicted. Appeals affirmed, rejecting claim Double Jeopardy Clause barred second Petitioner contends (1) he should never have undergo first because made aware defective before jeopardy attached, (2) once determined hear despite charge, entitled proceed a formal finding or innocence. Held: Petitioner's retrial after dismissal at his request violate Clause. Pp. 27-34. (a) proceedings against terminate favor, clearly being predicated judgment could be prosecuted convicted theft. order entered District functionally indistinguishable from declaration mistrial, which contemplates reprosecution defendant, see versus Jorn, 400 470, 476, 91 547, 552-553, 27 543. Thus distinction between dismissals mistrials has no significance circumstances here presented, established double principles governing permissibility mistrial fully apply this case. Jenkins, 420 358, 95 1006, 43 250, distinguished. 28-31. (b) Where requesting exercises choice favor terminating will bar absent provocative bad-faith conduct judge prosecutor. Dinitz, 424 600, 611, 96 1075, 1081-1082, 47 267. Here, were terminated attached defendant's consent, there judicial prosecutorial error intended provoke otherwise motivated bad faith. failure properly draft most negligent, Court's postpone taking until consider entirely light last-minute timing counsel's continuance stress importance placed charge. 33-34. 539 Federal Reporter, 2nd 612, affirmed. Joseph Pacific KF135 P2 Bauer, Notre Dame, Ind., petitioner. Andrew L. Frey, Washington, D. C., respondent. Mr. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 case Court, having heard evidence, provide adequate notice charged. retried question is whether violated 2 * On December 21, 1973, Lee stole two billfolds blind operator newsstand candy concession lobby Post Office Fort Wayne, Ind. A security guard saw take apprehended him tried escape. In an filed February 6, 1974, Northern Indiana, Government charged Act, 18 Code KF62 § Ind.Code Ann. 10-3030 (1971).1 Although defect come trial, allegations incomplete. statute requires proof committed knowingly deprive victim property. mention knowledge only "did steal" App. 4. 3 Some months Lee's lawyer withdrew another appointed represent him. waived right jury July 16, began scheduled. statement, new information. remarked would make full consideration difficult: 4 "Well, & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions it, but you certainly morning. It difficult deal if raise technical questions, don't give me opportunity advance research them. So you, problem." Id., 8. 5 Counsel then called court's attention lack allegation Referring Miller State, 250 338, 236 North Eastern 173 (1968), argued failed charge 103030, "then Information must dismissed." 9. motion: 6 since study all, deny time, my check your citation appears warranted. 7 "Is anything way statement?" Ibid. 8 Defense proceeded outline defense. He offered objection 9 lasted less than hours. presented its case, consisting testimony victim, recessed 15 minutes. recess acquittal prosecution establish Taking care distinguish earlier "reserved do some research," found sufficient withstand "directed Government's proof." 12-13. 10 rested without presenting returned motions, again distinguishing Speaking counsel, said: 11 "Your addressed borders frivolous. Your client proven (sic ) doubt world, about guilt; none whatsoever." 13. 12 nonetheless necessary grant either intent: 13 "The law cases are legion sufficiency charges dependent upon containing all elements, elements state 14 "As much dislike doing so, alternative original 14.2 September theft, time indictment alleging assimilated crime. substantially appeal, Seventh Circuit 612 (1976). We certiorari issue. 429 1037, 731, 50 748 (1977). II 16 urging Clause, directs principal arguments proceeding. (i) attached;3 (ii) responds himself blame both respects. By dismiss, virtually assured attachment jeopardy; failing withdraw invited interrupt formalizing merits.4 think better argument points under explained our decision 267 17 sides premise result different characterized termination rather information.5 too begin premise, although we qualification (1975). Jenkins dismissed charging refusal submit induction into Armed Services. Under Second stood offense, improper defendant convicted, subsequent held otherwise. Reasoning retroactive application intervening unfair, "permit criminal . seriously eroding fundamental basic equitable law." 349 F.Supp. 1068, 1073 (EDNY 1972), quoted U.S., 362, S.Ct., 1009.6 basis, entering general innocence, discharged defendant. 19 issue appeal Because absence guilt, clear prevailed merits needed resolve "factual issues offense charged." 370, 1013.7 such guarantee: resulted conviction, long respondent's favor." resting ground, recognized "of critical importance" "in favor" mistrial. 365 n. 7, 1011.8 20 (2, 3) drawn does turn labels action "dismissal" "declaration mistrial." end ruling invariably rests grounds consistent reprosecution, 552, 543 (1971) (plurality opinion), while may so. midtrial correct not, simply cannot charged, establishes 21 present said favor. wallets. To contrary, stressed obstacle conviction fact improperly. error, like necessitates one avoided beginning anew And can little contemplation just prosecution. short, mistrial.9 22 conclude applicable. B When act sua sponte response counsel. examined analogous situation where 24 well verdict, excluded lawyers courtroom repeatedly disregarding instructions. remaining motion. claims rejected, reached Fifth Amendment. 25 Writing STEWART reiterated rule " 'where develop attributable overreaching, ordinarily assumed remove barrier even necessitated error.' 607, 1080 quoting supra, 485, 557 opinion). Recognizing prejudicial prosecutor generally presents "Hobson's choice," nevertheless preserving "primary control over course followed event error." 609, 1081. 26 "Even when prejudices prospects securing acquittal, desire 'to go and, perhaps dispute acquittal.' 484, 547. Our prior decisions recognize pursue manifest necessity requiring But evident interest completing obtaining verdict jury. reasonably continuation tainted proceeding lengthy reversal secured, circumstances, objectives unlike interests served avoidance anxiety, expense, delay occasioned multiple prosecutions." 608, 1080. exercised stand reprosecution. Only underlying "motivated faith undertaken harass prejudice," id., 1082, retrial: 28 protect governmental actions requests thereby defendants substantial burdens imposed prosecutions. bars retrials 'bad-faith prosecutor,' threatens '(h)arassment accused successive prosecutions so afford more favorable convict' Downum States, 372 (734, 736, 83 1033, 100 (1963)). ." 29 remains these Contract 30 (4) consent. initially jeopardy, remarks left denial available reminded prosecution's evidence. effort motion, initial reminder still consideration. expressed views decided 31 follows Dinitz unless prompted "intended provoke" prejudice" Supra, 33. errors alleged: jeopardy. Neither assuming product kind overreaching Dinitz. drafting negligence, far evidencing faith, impress charge.10 32 hold 33 Affirmed. 34 BRENNAN, concurring. 35 join opinion. doing, want plain read signaling retreat cardinal principle law: possesses "valued completed particular tribunal," Wade Hunter, 336 684, 689, 69 834, 837, 93 L.Ed. 974 (1949), obligated protection right, 485-486, 557, agree constitute unfair "entirely reasonable" study. officially appeared late day during statements guarantee did. This especially true challenge crime, prudence might federal judge's delaying pending Certainly, faulted foresee legal contention easily resolved. While possibility sought own performed stopping middle taken. 36 emphasize, however, afforded ample advantage opportunity, permitted ordering circumstance, inaction effectively right" receive factual determination empaneled factfinder "embarrassment, expense ordeal" needless Green united 355 184, 187, 78 221, 223, 199 (1957). Even renews accurate argue forgo attain beneficial ruling. (1976); 557. predicament done everything power fair adjudication compromising factfinder. Honoring thus keeping policies also cause efficient administration encouraging present, judges rule, clamor heat 37 REHNQUIST, 38 Terms ago (1975), Wilson, 332, 1013, 232 thought precedential foundation laid analysis which, somewhat oversimplified, least many courts country decide questions explicit guidance what deemed Constitution require. (as opposed mistrials) they occurred stage factfinder's conclusion final concerned appealed very largely temporal considerations factfinding proceedings, reprosecuted, came later, could. Perez, Wheat. 579, 165 (1824), Illinois Somerville, 410 458, 1066, 425 (1973), basis treatment mistrials, definition contemplate 39 "bright line" circumvented, Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 564, 1349, 51 642 (1977), part. There (which treat differently dismissal) portion aborted 40 view development, feel free re-examine assumptions writing voting Wilson. completely accord those assumptions, well-articulated historically defensible exposition Bill Rights. Since rate survive 41 MARSHALL, dissenting. 42 apparent today deliberately passed up exercise supervisory prohibit condone procedure. opinion, ante, 2148, states problem solution: "Here, charge." 44 Throughout today's Brother puts lawyer, Attorney indeed, Sole responsibility faulty office Attorney. committed, corrected judgment, Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 7(e). defend offer amend error. Certainly erroneous Government. "(T) hough attorney sovereign prosecute earnestness vigor, always faithful client's overriding 'justice shall done.' Agurs, 427 97, 110-111, 2392, 2401, 49 342 (1976).1 45 made, ruled: warranted." Less hours thereafter minutes following comment: 46 dismissed. know who drafted tell clerk mine out school something that, send back refresher course. 48 You carry complete message department." 14. Can 15-minute taken attached?2 needlessly twice objection, reverse conviction. provides pertinent part person commits "knowingly obtains exerts unauthorized property owner intends use benefit provision repealed effective 1, Rule 7(e) district "may permit amended additional rights prejudiced." provision. As attach Serfass 377, 388, 1055, 1062, 265 Both assume statements, justify "proven world" "no whatsoever," 26, amount guilt. comments, context viewed fairly verdict. See infra. single footnote main brief, rely "between dismissal." Brief 25. text brief consistently assumes controlled 14-25. oral argument, conceded "whether (the trial) mis-trial dismissal, same." Tr. Oral Arg. 17. findings conclusions accompanying unclear ruled found, addition, reliance deprived intent. 362 3, 367-368, 1009 1012. post-verdict reinstatement reinstated appeal. noted "(e)ven supplemental findings." 1013. dismissing relied facts developed concluded applied "as matter fact." 490 868, 878 (CA2 1973), 364, 1010. disposition unnecessary address validity reasoning. recently "actually represents resolution, 571, 1355, concedes, must, acquittal. precisely mistake Discovery led declare objection. dictated "manifest necessity" standard articulated 580, (1824). reason believe Somerville analyzed judge, here, labeled referred specifically 1011 n.7. What dispose Due Process Cf. Palko Connecticut, 302 319, 328, 58 149, 153, 82 288 (1937). "A duty bring trial; State insuring due process." Barker Wingo, 407 514, 527, 92 2182, 2190, 101 (1972) (footnotes omitted). need call "recess"; Judge postponed

Classification Label: 0