Earl Warren

“ We do not agree that the standard of 'final decisions' as prerequisite to appeal is something less or different under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291, as the successor to § 226 of the District of Columbia Code of 1901 than it is under § 1291 as the successor to the nationally applicable appeal provisions of the Judicial Code. ”

“ Appeal rights cannot depend on the facts of a particular case. The Congress necessarily has had to draw the jurisdictional statutes in terms of categories. To fit an order granting suppression before trial in a criminal case into the category of 'final decisions' requires a straining that is not permissible in the light of the principles and the history concerning criminal appeals, especially Government appeals, that are outlined above and more fully set forth in the cases cited. ”

“ It is true that certain orders relating to a criminal case may be found to possess sufficient independence from the main course of the prosecution to warrant treatment as plenary orders, and thus be appealable on the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291, without regard to the limitations of 18 U.S.C. § 3731, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3731, just as in civil litigation orders of equivalent distinctness are appealable on the same authority without regard to the limitations of 28 U.S.C. § 1292, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292. [13] The instances in criminal cases are very few. ”

“ Earlier cases illustrated, sometimes without discussion, that under certain conditions orders for the suppression or return of illegally seized property are appealable at once, as where the motion is made prior to indictment, [14] or in a different district from that in which the trial will occur, [15] or after dismissal of the case, [16] or perhaps where the emphasis is on the return of property rather than its suppression as evidence. [17] In such cases, as appropriate, the Government as well as the moving person has been permitted to appeal from an adverse decision. ”

“ In particular is this true of the Government in a criminal case, for there is no authority today for interlocutory appeals, [20] and even if the Government had a general right to review upon an adverse conclusion of a case after trial, much of what it might complain of would have been allowed up in the sanctity of the jury's verdict. ”

“ The Court said: 'It is impossible to presume an intention on the part of congress to make so serious and far-reaching an innovation in the criminal jurisprudence of the United States.' 144 U.S. at page 323, 12 S.Ct. at page 613.↑ The 1907 enactment, 34 Stat. 1246, authorized direct review in this Court by writ of error in the same three classes of cases, roughly speaking, as are listed in the first four paragraphs of the present 18 U.S.C. § 3731, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3731, quoted in note 5, supra. ”