*1 Digest Reader’s et ux. v. 72-1274. Stilson No. Dist. App. 1st App. Cal., Ct. et al. Inc., Assn., Douglas cer- grant denied. tiorari. et al. v. United 72-6167. aka Gino,
No. Giordano, denied. Cir. Certiorari Mr. Jus- Douglas certiorari. grant tice al. et v. Towner No. Porzuczek, Guardian dispense with Motion to App. Dist. App. Cal., 1st petition granted. Certiorari printing C. A. 5th 72-6083. Smith Cir. Certiorari Bren- with whom Justice Mr. dissenting.
nan concurs, removing charged was originally Petitioner in violation Treasury mail, check from the United States Treasury uttering forged 1702, § 18 U. S. C. C. 495. After a check, § violation was convicted on the obstruction-of- trial, petitioner uttering charge. on the charge acquitted the-mails but a new trial.1 granted was Thereafter, indictment was superseding Prior to the new returned, repeated a United charge removing Treasury check from the mail in of 18 States violation Treasury but of a check 1702, charged forgery § violation of 18 U. S. C. rather than the uttering § on which had ac- judge 1 The sentencing petitioner, trial died before case and the reassigned judge imposed was another who sentence. Unnoticed in the transfer the fact that motion for a new upon. discovered, peti had never been ruled When this was granted tioner was a new trial. count, moved
quitted. to dismiss first acquittal contending instrument barred Gov- forged *2 that he was proving, trial, ernment from at a second The The denied the motion. forger. the District Court moved to dismiss the obstruction-of-the- Government right to mails Petitioner waived his charge.2 in stipulation to count and on a the facts alleged found of forgery. forgery both and urges the I in a
charges prosecuted should have been trial. single in v. in Ashe agree. As was stated the dissent Swenson, of tendency 397 the 452: “Given legislation phases modern criminal to divide the of criminal separate crimes, transaction into numerous the for opportunities multiple prosecutions essentially for an unitary criminal episode frightening.” are The instant prime example action is a of how prosecution, the developed the of hindsight what initial can thereafter phase choose another of the criminal trans- action on to indict a defendant and him force to go through monetary the emotional and strains additional of litigation.
1 adopt the interpretation of the Double Jeop- ardy Clause urged in dissent Ashe. Except limited circumstances, the prosecution should be required join in one all the charges against single de- fendant which grow out of single act, criminal occur- rence, episode, or Only transaction. such interpreta- an tion of the Jeopardy Double promote Clause will justice, economy, and convenience, as well as guard against gave The option Government going of to trial on forgery either the taking or the the check from the mails. Petitioner chose the count, expressly ac knowledging that he though chose it penalties even thereunder were the more severe. im- interpretation is an Such prosecutions.
vexatious prosecu- virtually unreviewable light perative scope the initiation concerning torial discretion prosecution. criminal Egger A. 9th v. United petition granted. to amend Motion for leave
Cir. v. No. 72-6190. Douver Mack Harris Harris, Jr., and Joe Cir. Motions Jack join petition for leave to for writ of certiorari Certiorari denied. Pennsylvania. Neely Sup. Pa.
No. 72-6206. Certiorari denied. *3 with whom Mr. Justice Stew- concur, dissenting. and Mr. Justice Marshall
art presents question This case which this Court has not answered —under what circumstances prior sentencing, to defendant, may withdraw a guilty plea.1
1Although opinion concurring of Mr. Justice Marshall part dissenting part York, in Santobello v. New 257, 267, joined by and Stewart, Mr. Justice Brennan question, Court, addressed this vacating petitioner’s conviction by promise because the did not abide State made to at the time of plea, his remanded for a determination “whether require only circumstances of this ease specific there be performance agreement plea, of the in which case should be resentenced judge, whether, a different or in the view court, require state granting sought circumstances the relief by petitioner, e., i. opportunity plea guilty.” withdraw Id., at In Warden, 263. Dukes v. Mr. Justice Mar dissent, joined by shall, me, again Id., addressed issue. Court, however, 259. The solely considered whether guilty plea had voluntary when entered. Mr. Justice Stewart