Wade v. Hunter, Warden
336 U.S. 684 (1949)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar a retrial when a prior court-martial is dissolved before reaching a verdict due to a "manifest necessity," which can include a commanding general's good-faith determination that a pressing tactical military situation requires it.
Facts:
- In March 1945, during the Allied invasion of Germany, petitioner Wade, an American soldier, was arrested on charges of raping two German women in the town of Krov.
- Approximately two weeks later, a general court-martial was convened to try Wade at Pfalzfeld, Germany, by which time his division had advanced 22 miles from Krov.
- After all evidence and arguments were presented, the court-martial panel closed to deliberate but then reopened the proceedings.
- The court-martial decided to continue the case to a later date to hear testimony from additional witnesses—the victim's parents—who were not then available.
- One week later, the Commanding General of the 76th Infantry Division formally withdrew the charges and dissolved the court-martial.
- The stated reason for this action was that the "tactical situation" of the rapidly advancing army had made the distance to the witnesses' residence so great that completing the case within a reasonable time was not possible.
Procedural Posture:
- After the first court-martial was dissolved, Wade was tried and convicted by a second court-martial convened by the Fifteenth Army.
- At the second trial, Wade's plea of former jeopardy was overruled.
- After exhausting his rights to military review, Wade filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a federal district court.
- The district court granted the writ, holding that Wade's double jeopardy plea should have been sustained.
- The government, on behalf of the warden (Hunter), appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, with one judge dissenting.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
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 Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause bar a second court-martial when the first court-martial was dissolved before a verdict due to a commanding general's assessment of a pressing tactical military situation?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Black
No. The Fifth Amendment's double-jeopardy provision does not bar petitioner’s trial before the second court-martial. The guiding principle, established in United States v. Perez, is that a trial may be discontinued and a defendant retried when there is a 'manifest necessity' for doing so or when the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated. This flexible standard, which avoids rigid formulas, applies to courts-martial as well as civilian courts. A defendant's valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal must sometimes be subordinated to the public’s interest in fair trials ending in just judgments. In this case, the 'tactical situation brought about by a rapidly advancing army' constituted such a manifest necessity. Courts must give great deference to the on-the-spot decisions of a commanding general regarding tactical military needs, especially in the absence of any evidence of bad faith.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Murphy
Yes. The second trial violated the petitioner's constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy. Jeopardy clearly attached when the first court-martial began hearing evidence. The 'tactical situation' of an advancing army is not a sufficient 'manifest necessity' to justify depriving a soldier of his fundamental constitutional rights. The harassment to a defendant from repeated trials is not lessened by military expediency. The command of the Fifth Amendment is absolute and should not be eroded by a tide of plausible-appearing exceptions that prioritize convenience over constitutional guarantees.
Analysis:
This decision formally extends the flexible 'manifest necessity' standard for double jeopardy exceptions to the military justice system. It establishes that a commanding officer's assessment of a battlefield 'tactical situation' can constitute a legally sufficient reason to terminate a trial without barring retrial. The ruling grants significant deference to military command decisions during wartime, potentially subordinating an individual soldier's Fifth Amendment protections to the perceived needs of military operations. This precedent solidifies that the public's interest in achieving a just verdict can, under certain urgent and practical circumstances, outweigh the defendant's interest in the finality of a single proceeding.
Unlock the full brief for Wade v. Hunter, Warden