NCJ Number
17701
Journal
Dickinson Law Review Volume: 78 Issue: 3 Dated: (SPRING 1974) Pages: 597-604
Date Published
1974
Length
8 pages
Annotation
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, IN A FIVE TO FOUR DECISION, HELD THAT SUCH A SENTENCE VIOLATED NEITHER THE PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED FROM DOUBLE JEOPARDY NOR HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
Abstract
THE DEFENSE HAD PRESENTED A THREE-PRONGED ATTACK ON THE HARSHER SENTENCE, CLAIMING THAT: (1) THE HIGHER SENTENCE ON RETRIAL VIOLATED THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT MADE APPLICABLE TO THE STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT; (2) A HIGHER SENTENCE OCCASIONED BY VINDICTIVENESS ON THE PART OF THE SENTENCING AUTHORITY VIOLATES TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS OF FAIRNESS IN CRIMINAL PROCESS; AND (3) THE MERE POSSIBILITY OF A HIGHER SENTENCE, EVEN ABSENT A FEAR OF VINDICTIVENESS, HAS AN IMPERMISSIBLE CHILLING EFFECT ON PETITIONER'S EXERCISE OF HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL AND COLLATERALLY ATTACK HIS CONVICTION. EACH OF THESE ARGUMENTS ARE EXAMINED IN DETAIL ALONG WITH THE PERTINENT CASE LAW. THE SUPREME COURT'S RULING STATED THAT A JURY COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPOSE A HARSHER SENTENCE ON RETRIAL THAN THAT WHICH WAS IMPOSED AT THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS SO LONG AS THE SECOND JURY WAS UNAWARE OF THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE AND THE HIGHER SENTENCE WAS NOT OTHERWISE SHOWN TO BE THE PRODUCT OF VINDICTIVENESS ON THE PART OF THE RESENTENCING JURY. THE MAJORITY FURTHER HELD THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF AN UNRESTRICTED, JURY IMPOSED HARSHER SENTENCE ON RETRIAL DID NOT HAVE AN IMPERMISSIBLE CHILLING EFFECT ON THE PETITIONER'S EXERCISE OF HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL OR TO COLLATERALLY ATTACK HIS CONVICTION. THE AUTHOR OF THIS CASE COMMENT CONCURS WITH THE COURT'S OPINION. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)