Downum v. United States

Background

A defendant was tried alone on an eight-count federal indictment for stealing from the mail and forging checks, while his three codefendants pleaded guilty. At the first scheduled trial a jury was selected and sworn, but a key government witness who was the payee on some checks was absent. The defense asked the judge to dismiss the counts that depended on that witness and continue with the rest; the judge denied that request and discharged the jury over the defendant’s objection. Two days later a new jury convicted the defendant, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Double Jeopardy protection against being tried twice bars a second trial when a jury is discharged after the prosecution impanelled it without ensuring a key witness was present. The Court found that the prosecutor “took a chance” by going ahead with jury selection without confirming the witness’s availability and that doubts must be resolved in favor of the defendant’s liberty. The majority relied on a prior ruling from the Ninth Circuit and held that a retrial was barred under these facts, so the conviction had to be reversed. The Court emphasized that each case depends on its facts and did not announce an absolute rule that witness absence can never justify a discharge.

Real world impact

The decision protects defendants from being subjected to a second trial when prosecutors proceed to impanel a jury without having their essential witnesses ready. It warns prosecutors and trial judges to consider defendants’ rights before discharging juries. The ruling turns on practical facts, so similar future cases will be decided case by case.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the short scheduling, heavy caseload, and temporary absence of the witness made the judge’s action reasonable and that the public interest in completing trials can justify limited retrials.