Crist v. Bretz

Background

Two men tried in Montana on grand larceny and false-pretenses charges had a jury empaneled and sworn. Before any witness testified a court ruling dismissed one defective count, so the State dismissed the whole information and filed a new one with corrected dates. After a second jury was sworn the defendants were retried and convicted; the State courts and federal courts then disputed whether the second trial violated the constitutional protection against being tried twice for the same crime.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether the long-standing federal rule — that jeopardy for a jury trial attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn — is part of the Constitution and thus must be followed by the States through the Fourteenth Amendment (which applies federal protections against state action). Relying on prior decisions and the interest in protecting a defendant’s right to keep a chosen jury and avoid repeated prosecutions, the Court concluded the federal rule is integral to the double-jeopardy guarantee and must bind state courts.

Real world impact

The decision means states cannot adopt a later trigger point, like waiting until the first witness is sworn, for jury trials; second prosecutions after a sworn jury are barred unless an urgent justification exists. The opinion notes nonjury trials remain governed by a different rule about witness testimony, and the appeal became moot as to one defendant whose conviction had been reversed.

Dissents or concurrances

A concurrence emphasized anxiety, embarrassment, and prosecutorial overreaching as reasons to protect the jury stage. Dissents argued the rule is not constitutionally required and warned against forcing uniform state procedures.