Quashal: Double Jeopardy
US v Scott
No. 76-1382. 14 June 1978
Rehnquist, J.
FACTS:
Crime Distribution of Narcotics (Federal Drug Offense) – 3 counts
Nature Review on Certiorari
Parties Scott – Police officer in Miskegon Michigan
US – gov’t
Before Scott moved to dismiss the two counts of the indictment which concerned transactions
Trial that took place during the preceding September, on the ground that his defense had been
prejudiced by preindictment delay.
Court for - Twice during trial, Scott moved again to dismiss the two counts of indictment
Western - Court granted the motion.
District Stated that Scott showed sufficient evidence to prove prejudice to 1st count. (2nd
of count wasn’t explained)
Michigan - Court submitted 3rd count to the jury, which returned a verdict of not guilty.
- US gov’t appealed the dismissal of the first two counts to CA.
CA - Concluded that Double Jeopardy Clause of 5th Amendment barred further
prosecution, citing US v Jenkins.
- Thus US sought review in SC.
SC CA Judgment REVERSED. Case remanded for further proceedings.
ISSUE:
1. W/N double jeopardy clause prohibits subsequent prosecution on appeal, of criminal counts that are
dismissed.
- SC reversed ruling in Jenkins, discussing the history of double jeopardy in US jurisprudence.
o Purpose: “State with all its resources and power, should not be allowed to make repeated
attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to
embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety
and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that, even though innocent, he may be found
guilty.”
o This was applied easily, as criminal prosecutions were simple and proceeded to final judgment.
o Then, Congress made provision for review of certain criminal cases by this Court, but only upon
a certificate of division from the circuit court, and subsequently permitted criminal defendants
to seek a writ of error in this Court, and then only in capital cases.
"a verdict of acquittal . . . could not be reviewed, on error or otherwise, without putting a
defendant twice in jeopardy, and thereby violating the Constitution."
- Purpose of double jeopardy:
(1) protect the integrity of final judgment
(2) protect the interest of the defendant, even before final determination of guilt (2 situations)
When trial judge declares a mistrial (does not attach when motion for mistrial is raised by
defendant)
Trial judge terminates the proceedings favorably to the defendant on a basis not related to
factual guilt or innocence. (but according to US jurisprudence, in some cases, dismissal of an
indictment may be treated on the same basis as the declaration of a mistrial.
- In the present case, the District Court's dismissal of the first count of the indictment was based upon
a claim of preindictment delay, and not on the court's conclusion that the Government had not
produced sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the defendant.
o It is one raised by defendant. Given due course by the judge, even though determination of facts
may have proceeded and satisfied the trier of facts.
- Despite respondent's contentions, an appeal is not barred simply because a ruling in favor of a
defendant "is based upon facts outside the face of the indictment.” Rather, a defendant is acquitted
only when "the ruling of the judge, whatever its label, actually represents a resolution [in the
defendant's favor], correct or not, of some or all of the factual elements of the offense charged."
- in a case such as this, the defendant, by deliberately choosing to seek termination of the proceedings
against him on a basis unrelated to factual guilt or innocence of the offense of which he is accused,
suffers no injury cognizable under the Double Jeopardy Clause if the Government is permitted to
appeal from such a ruling of the trial court in favor of the defendant.
In summary: Double Jeopardy does not always bar subsequent prosecution of a matter. Particularly, when
factual guilt or innocence is not determined, no prosecution has been carried through. Thus, in the case
of a mistrial or when proceedings are terminated for reasons other than a final disposition, subsequent
prosecution may take place.
HELD:
Reversed. Double Jeopardy does not bar subsequent prosecution of a matter when it is dismissed on a
ground unrelated to factual guilt or innocence. “Where a defendant, himself, seeks to have the trial
terminated without any submission to either judge or jury as to his guilt or innocence, an appeal by the
government for his successful effort to do so is not barred by [the Double Jeopardy Clause].”
DISSENT:
Justice Brennan notes that “the reasons that bar a retrial following an acquittal are equally
applicable to a final judgment entered on a ground unrelated to factual innocence.” Thus, double
jeopardy has attached and should bar the re appreciation of facts.
