Deaver v. States
Chief Justice Rehnquist, acting alone as the Circuit Justice, refused to pause a perjury trial while the defendant pursued Supreme Court review of his separation-of-powers challenge to the independent counsel law.
The order rests on a long-standing rule against piecemeal appeals in criminal cases: a defendant generally cannot appeal a pretrial ruling, even on a constitutional question, until after a final conviction.
“There will be time enough for applicant to present his constitutional claim to the appellate courts if and when he is convicted of the charges against him.”
Explaining why the constitutional challenge could wait until after any conviction.
How it got here: A district court denied a motion to dismiss criminal charges; the D.C. Circuit dismissed the appeal as not final; the defendant sought Supreme Court review and a stay.
The Case in Depth
What happened
A man was indicted for perjury following an investigation by an independent counsel appointed under the Ethics in Government Act. Before trial, he asked the district court to dismiss the charges, arguing that the law allowing appointment of an independent counsel to investigate government officials violates the constitutional separation of powers between branches of government.
The question before the Court
Should a man facing a perjury trial get to pause the proceedings so an appeals court could first decide whether the independent counsel law is constitutional?
Why it matters
The defendant's criminal trial proceeds as scheduled, and his constitutional challenge to the independent counsel statute must wait until after any conviction and appeal. The ruling also reinforces that defendants generally cannot interrupt ongoing criminal cases with immediate appeals of constitutional objections, even ones concerning how prosecutors were appointed.
What changes now
The criminal trial proceeds as scheduled on July 13, 1987. The defendant retains the ability to raise his separation-of-powers challenge to the independent counsel law on appeal if he is convicted. This is a single Justice's emergency order, not a final ruling by the full Court on the merits of the constitutional question.
What this does not decide
This order does not decide whether the independent counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act are constitutional. It only addresses whether the trial should be paused while the defendant sought Supreme Court review of an appeals court's procedural dismissal.
Concurrences and dissents
How the Justices voted
Majority (1). Justice Rehnquist (author).
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- A single Justice deciding whether to pause proceedings pending Supreme Court review must weigh whether four Justices would likely vote to hear the case, balance the practical harms and benefits of pausing versus not pausing (the 'stay equities'), and assess the likely outcome if the Court did take the case.
- Federal law limits appeals from trial courts to 'final decisions' that end the litigation, and courts have long treated this limit as especially strict in criminal cases to avoid interrupting prosecutions with piecemeal appeals.
- The district court's refusal to dismiss the charges did not end the case, so it was not a final decision that could normally be appealed right away.
- The Circuit Justice considered and rejected the defendant's argument that his separation-of-powers challenge fell within a narrow exception allowing immediate appeal of certain claims considered separate from the merits of the case, reasoning that allowing this claim through would let constitutional challenges to prosecuting statutes generally bypass the final-decision rule.
- Because there was no realistic chance a majority of the Court would find the appeals court wrong to dismiss the appeal, the Circuit Justice concluded there was no basis to pause the trial while review was sought.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Distinguishes Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. (337 U. S. 541)
The Court found this case's narrow exception for immediate appeals did not cover a constitutional challenge to a prosecuting statute.