Werneth v. Idaho

Background

A defendant in Idaho was first charged with embezzlement by bailee. Trial began: a jury was empaneled, witnesses were sworn, and a state witness gave testimony. The State tried to amend the charge to embezzlement by corporate officer, but the judge refused that amendment. The State then moved to dismiss the original charge; after defense counsel spoke and withdrew an objection, the judge dismissed it. Four days later the State charged the defendant with embezzlement by corporate officer based on the same conduct, and the defendant was later convicted and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed.

Reasoning

The central question was whether trying the defendant again on a related embezzlement charge after the first charge was dismissed violated the rule against being tried twice for the same conduct. The Supreme Court denied review, so the high court did not resolve the question in this case. Justice Brennan (joined by Justice Marshall) dissented, arguing that jeopardy had attached once trial began and testimony was taken and that the Constitution generally requires related charges from a single transaction to be tried in one proceeding.

Real world impact

Because the Court declined to review the case, the Idaho conviction stands and the broader constitutional question remains unresolved nationally. The decision leaves intact the state-court outcome here and leaves open whether prosecutors may dismiss and later refile closely related charges in other states or cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan would have granted review and reversed the Idaho decision, emphasizing that the Double Jeopardy Clause, applied to the States, generally forbids separate prosecutions for charges that arise from the same transaction.