Crist, Warden, et al. v. Bretz et al.
437 U.S. 28 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The federal rule that jeopardy attaches in a criminal jury trial when the jury is empaneled and sworn is an integral part of the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against double jeopardy, and this rule is binding on the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- Merrel Cline and L. R. Bretz were charged in a Montana court with grand larceny and obtaining money by false pretenses.
- The information for the false pretenses charge alleged the illegal conduct began on January 13, 1974.
- After a three-day selection process, a jury was officially empaneled and sworn.
- Before the first witness was called, the defense noted that the statute cited in the false pretenses charge had been repealed effective January 1, 1974.
- The prosecutor stated that the date was a typographical error and should have been 1973, but the trial judge denied a motion to amend the information.
- The judge then granted the prosecutor's motion to dismiss the entire information, and the sworn jury was discharged.
- A new information was filed against Cline and Bretz, alleging the same offenses but with the corrected date of January 13, 1973.
Procedural Posture:
- After the first information was dismissed, Merrel Cline and L. R. Bretz were prosecuted under a new information in the same Montana trial court.
- The trial court denied their motion to dismiss the new information on double jeopardy grounds.
- A trial was held, and the defendants were convicted on the false-pretenses count.
- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, reasoning that under state law, jeopardy had not attached in the first proceeding because no witness had been sworn.
- The defendants then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, which denied the petition.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court, holding that the federal rule for jeopardy attachment is binding on the states.
- The State of Montana, through Warden Crist, appealed the Ninth Circuit's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fourteenth Amendment make the federal rule that jeopardy attaches in a jury trial when the jury is empaneled and sworn binding on the states?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stewart
Yes, the federal rule that jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn is a fundamental component of the Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy that applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that this rule is not merely an arbitrary procedural convenience but is deeply rooted in protecting a defendant's 'valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal.' This interest is a core concern of the Double Jeopardy Clause, alongside preventing harassment and ensuring the finality of judgments. The Court held that the moment the jury is sworn is the 'lynchpin for all double jeopardy jurisprudence' because it marks the point where a defendant is truly put in jeopardy of a conviction by that specific fact-finding body. Therefore, Montana's statute, which delayed the attachment of jeopardy until the first witness was sworn, is unconstitutional.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Blackmun
Yes, the federal rule is binding on the states. While the 'valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal' is a key factor, the result should not rest solely on that ground. Other important interests are also protected by this rule, including shielding the defendant from the repetitive stress and anxiety of multiple trials, preventing public embarrassment, and guarding against prosecutorial overreaching. The point at which the jury is sworn is when the defendant's interest in the jury 'reaches its highest plateau' and the risk of these harms becomes most acute.
Dissenting - Mr. Chief Justice Burger
No, the federal rule should not be constitutionally imposed on the states. Insisting on mechanical uniformity in this area trivializes constitutional guarantees and infringes on principles of federalism. The time between the swearing of the jury and the swearing of the first witness does not pose a meaningful threat to the core concerns of the Double Jeopardy Clause. States should be free to act as 'laboratories' and experiment with different procedures that are compatible with constitutional principles, rather than being forced into a 'procrustean federal mold' on matters better left to their discretion.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Powell
No, the rule that jeopardy attaches when the jury is sworn is not mandated by the Constitution and should not be applied to the states. The rule is a 'product of historical accident' derived from English jury practice, not from the original understanding of the Double Jeopardy Clause, which focused on preventing retrial after a final verdict of acquittal or conviction. The policies of the Double Jeopardy Clause would be equally well served by Montana's rule, which aligns the attachment point in jury trials with that of bench trials (when the first witness is sworn or evidence is heard). Furthermore, even if the rule were a Fifth Amendment requirement for federal courts, it is not a 'fundamental' right that must be incorporated against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.
Analysis:
This decision established a uniform, national standard for when jeopardy attaches in state criminal jury trials, resolving a split among the states. By incorporating the federal 'jury sworn' rule into the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court affirmed that the timing of jeopardy's attachment is a fundamental right, not a mere procedural rule left to state discretion. This holding solidifies the defendant's interest in having their case decided by the chosen jury as a core component of the double jeopardy protection. The case significantly limits state autonomy in this area of criminal procedure and provides a clear, bright-line rule for all future double jeopardy claims in state courts.
Unlock the full brief for Crist, Warden, et al. v. Bretz et al.