United States v. Scott

1978-10-02

Headline: Court allows the Government to appeal a midtrial dismissal for pre-indictment delay, overturning a prior rule and making it easier for prosecutors to seek retrial after defendant-initiated trial terminations.

Holding: The Court held that the Government may appeal a midtrial dismissal sought by the defendant for reasons unrelated to factual guilt, overruling Jenkins and permitting retrial if an appellate court reverses the dismissal.

Real World Impact:

Allows prosecutors to appeal midtrial dismissals sought by defendants.
Increases the chance of retrial after appellate reversal of dismissals.
Pushes courts to decide whether dismissals are factual acquittals or legal terminations.

Topics: double jeopardy, government appeals, preindictment delay, criminal procedure, trial dismissals

Summary

Background

A police officer was indicted on three narcotics counts after alleged September transactions. He moved before and during trial to dismiss two counts, claiming pre-indictment delay had prejudiced his defense. At the close of evidence the District Court granted dismissal of the first count; the jury acquitted on the third count. The Government appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which dismissed the appeal relying on the Court’s earlier decision in Jenkins.

Reasoning

The main question was whether the Constitution’s protection against being tried twice (double jeopardy) blocks the Government from appealing a trial court order that ends a case in the defendant’s favor when the defendant requested that ending. The Court held that Jenkins was wrongly decided and overruled it. The majority said double jeopardy bars retrial only when a court’s ruling actually resolves factual elements of the offense in the defendant’s favor (an acquittal). When a defendant voluntarily gets the trial dismissed on grounds unrelated to factual guilt, the Constitution does not prevent a Government appeal under 18 U.S.C. §3731.

Real world impact

Because the Court reversed the Sixth Circuit, prosecutors may now appeal some midtrial dismissals that defendants obtain for legal reasons like pre-indictment delay. Defendants who obtain such dismissals risk reversal and retrial if an appellate court disagrees. Courts will have to decide case by case whether a dismissal was a factual acquittal or a legal termination.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan’s dissent argued the dismissal functioned as an acquittal and that overruling Jenkins weakens protection against multiple prosecutions and invites confusion for trial courts and defendants.