United States v. Tateo

1964-06-08

Headline: Court allows the Government to retry a defendant after his guilty plea was later set aside, ruling retrial does not violate the Constitution’s ban on double jeopardy and restoring the robbery charges.

Holding: The Court held that the Government may retry a defendant whose conviction was later set aside because his guilty plea was involuntary, and such a retrial does not violate the Constitution’s ban on double jeopardy.

Real World Impact:

Allows prosecutors to retry defendants after convictions vacated for involuntary pleas.
Means coerced guilty pleas can lead to a new trial rather than a permanent bar.
Increases likelihood of reprosecution despite a judge’s coercive comments.

Topics: double jeopardy, guilty pleas, criminal retrial, judicial conduct

Summary

Background

A man named Tateo was tried on five federal counts, including bank robbery and a related kidnapping charge. After four days of trial, the judge told defense counsel he would impose a life sentence on the kidnapping count and consecutive terms on other counts if the jury convicted. Told conviction was likely, Tateo pleaded guilty, the jury was discharged, the kidnapping count was dropped by the prosecution, and Tateo was sentenced to 22 years and 6 months. Later, a different judge granted Tateo’s motion under federal law to set aside the conviction, finding his plea involuntary because of the judge’s comments, the trial testimony, and advice from counsel. The Government reindicted Tateo, a district court dismissed the indictment as barred by double jeopardy, and the Government appealed to this Court.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether retrying Tateo would breach the Constitution’s prohibition on being tried twice for the same offense. Writing for the majority, Justice Harlan held that retrial is permitted when a conviction is overturned because of errors in the proceedings that produced the conviction. The Court relied on earlier decisions allowing retrial after reversible trial errors and treated a collateral vacation of a conviction under §2255 the same as a direct reversal. The majority emphasized society’s interest in punishing the guilty and said allowing retrial also supports defendants by encouraging correction of trial errors. The Court reversed the district court and ordered the bank-robbery counts reinstated.

Real world impact

The decision means prosecutors may bring new trials when convictions are later vacated for involuntary pleas or trial errors. Defendants who pleaded guilty during trial may still face reprosecution if a court later sets aside the plea. This ruling clarifies that a collateral setting-aside does not automatically bar retrial.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Goldberg, joined by Justices Black and Douglas, dissented, arguing Tateo was denied his right to have the jury decide his fate because the judge’s threat forced a guilty plea and that reprosecution should be barred under earlier precedent.