Summary

Portrait of Arthur Goldberg Arthur Goldberg United States v. Tateo — Dissent

The Court also intimates that if Tateo's plea of double jeopardy is accepted then, logically, it will be necessary to bar reprosecutions under the Double Jeopardy Clause of persons whose guilty pleas made before the jury is sworn, are ultimately found to be coerced. But again, under this Court's decisions, this does not follow. By settled interpretation the protection of the Double Jeopardy Clause does not attach before a jury is impaneled and sworn, or in a nonjury trial, before the court has begun to hear evidence.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Arthur Goldberg Arthur Goldberg United States v. Tateo — Dissent

The Court's final point is that its decision is necessary to protect 'the societal interest in punishing one whose guilt is clear'-an interest which the Court here prefers to the right of an accused not to be subjected to double jeopardy. Ante, at 466. With all deference, I suggest that the Constitution has resolved this question of competing interests of the Government and the individual in favor of protecting the individual from the harassment and danger of reprosecution.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Arthur Goldberg Arthur Goldberg United States v. Tateo — Dissent

If, as was his constitutional right, he continued with the trial and were found guilty, he faced, in the light of the Court's announced attitude, the imposition of a life sentence upon the kidnapping charge, plus additional time upon the other counts, a sentence which is lawyer informed him and which he believed, not without reason, meant life imprisonment.' 214 F.Supp., at 565-566.
'No matter how heinous the offense charged, how overwhelming the proof of guilt may appear, or how hopeless the defense, a defendant's right to continue with his trial may not be violated.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature