UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
JEFFREY R. MACDONALD, APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a prior investigative proceeding did not adjudicate guilt or innocence, thus jeopardy never attached and double jeopardy does not bar subsequent prosecution.
Jeffrey R. MacDonald sought interlocutory review of an order denying his pretrial motion to dismiss an indictment based on double jeopardy. A prior Ar…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Review Of Interlocutory Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
BUTZNER, Circuit Judge:
In United States v. MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850, 98 S.Ct. 1547, 56 L.Ed.2d 18 (1978), the Supreme Court held that a defendant may not obtain interlocutory appellate review of an order denying his pretrial motion to dismiss an indictment because of alleged infringement of his sixth amendment right to speedy trial.* On remand, we granted Jeffrey R. MacDonald’s motion for supplemental briefing on the issue of double jeopardy.
We conclude that the proceeding against MacDonald under Article 32, U.S.C.M.J., 10 U.S.C. § 832, and the commanding officer’s review were investigative. Although this investigation culminated in the acceptance of a recommendation that charges against MacDonald be dismissed because they were “not true,” the proceeding did not adjudicate his guilt or innocence. Calley v. Callaway, 519 F. 2d 184, 215 n.54 (5th Cir. 1975); United States v. Moffett, 10 U.S.C.M.A. 169, 27 C.M.R. 243 (1959); United States v. Zagar, 5 U.S.C.M.A. 410, 416-17, 18 C.M.R. 34, 40-41 (1955).
Since MacDonald was not put to trial before a military tribunal authorized to convict or acquit him, jeopardy never attached. Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 387-89, 95 S.Ct. 1055, 43 L.Ed.2d 265 (1975). Consequently, the fifth amendment’s guarantee against double jeopardy does not bar subsequent prosecution in a federal district court. See Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 32, 98 S.Ct. 2156, 2159, 57 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978). Furthermore, because no final judgment of a tribunal having jurisdiction to try MacDonald has determined an issue of ultimate fact, the prosecution pending in the district court is not barred by the fifth amendment’s embodiment of collateral estoppel. See Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970). The absence of such a judgment distinguishes this case from United States v. Oppenheimer, 242 U.S. 85, 37 S.Ct. 68, 61 L.Ed. 161 (1916) and United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394, 86 S.Ct. 1545, 16 L.Ed.2d 642 (1966), on which MacDonald primarily relies. The order denying MacDonald’s plea of double jeopardy is affirmed, and this case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
*
The Court reversed United States v. MacDonald, 531 F. 2d 196 (4th Cir. 1976). The facts and issues are set forth sufficiently in both opinions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. MacDONALD, 688 F.2d 224 (4th Cir. 1982)
-
United States v. Perlie Donald Workman, 617 F.2d 48 (4th Cir. 1980)
-
United States v. Smith, 912 F.2d 322 (9th Cir. 1990)
Authorities Cited
- Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1970)
- United States v. Utah Constr. & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394 (U.S. 1966)
- United States v. MacDONALD, 435 U.S. 850 (U.S. 1978)
- Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1975)
- Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (U.S. 1978)
- United States v. Oppenheimer, 242 U.S. 85 (U.S. 1916)
- Calley v. Callaway, 519 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1975)
- United States v. MacDONALD, 531 F.2d 196 (4th Cir. 1976)