Pretrial motion to dismiss code#
Pretrial motion to dismiss trial#

Pretrial motion to dismiss trial#

Unlike the protection afforded by the Double Jeopardy Clause, the Speedy Trial Clause does not, either on its face or according to the decisions of this Court, encompass a 'right not to be tried' which must be upheld prior to trial if it is to be enjoyed at all. Both doctrinally and pragmatically, however, this argument fails.

7 There perhaps is some superficial attraction in the argument that the right to a speedy trial-by analogy to these other rights-must be vindicated before trial in order to insure that no nonspeedy trial is ever held. Boyle, and the posting of security at issue in Cohen each involved an asserted right the legal and practical value of which would be destroyed if it were not vindicated before trial. The double jeopardy claim in Abney, the demand for reduced bail in Stack v. Relatedly, the order sought to be appealed in this case may not accurately be described, in the sense that the description has been employed, as involving 'an important right which would be 'lost, probably irreparably,' if review had to await final judgment.' Id., at 658, 97 S.Ct., at 2040, quoting Cohen, 337 U.S., at 546, 69 S.Ct., at 1225. Normally, it is only after trial that that claim may fairly be assessed. The essence of a defendant's Sixth Amendment claim in the usual case is that the passage of time has frustrated his ability to establish his innocence of the crime charged. In contrast, a central interest served by the Speedy Trial Clause is the protection of the factfinding process at trial. The double jeopardy motion in Abney was separable from the issues at trial because 'he elements of that claim are completely independent of guilt or innocence,' 431 U.S., at 660, 97 S.Ct., at 2040, since an acquittal would not have eliminated the defendant's grievance at having been put twice in jeopardy. The claim would be largely satisfied by an acquittal resulting from the prosecution's failure to carry its burden of proof. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, 'the rights conferred on a criminal accused by the Double Jeopardy Clause would be significantly undermined if appellate review of double jeopardy claims were postponed until after conviction and sentence.' Id., at 660, 97 S.Ct., at 2041.Įven if the degree of prejudice could be accurately measured before trial, a speedy trial claim nonetheless would not be sufficiently independent of the outcome of the trial to warrant pretrial appellate review. e., whether or not the accused is guilty of the offense charged.' Ibid. Secondly, it noted that 'the very nature of a double jeopardy claim is such that it is collateral to, and separable from, the principal issue at the accused's impending criminal trial, i. Hence, Cohen's threshold requirement of a fully consummated decision is satisfied.' 431 U.S., at 659, 97 S.Ct., at 2040. There are simply no further steps that can be taken in the District Court to avoid the trial the defendant maintains is barred by the Fifth Amendment's guarantee. It pointed out, first, that such an order constitutes 'a complete, formal and, in the trial court, a final rejection of a criminal defendant's double jeopardy claim. In so holding, the Court emphasized the special features of a motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy. In Abney, the Court returned to this theme, holding that the collateral-order doctrine permits interlocutory appeal of an order denying a pretrial motion to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy grounds. § 918) should be referred by the general court-martial convening authority (the post commander) to a general court-martial for trial.

§ 832, an investigating officer was appointed to investigate the crimes and to recommend whether the charges (three specifications of murder, in violation of Art. § 830, the Army charged respondent with the murders.

Pretrial motion to dismiss code#

30 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. On April 6 the CID informed respondent that he was under suspicion and, that same day, he was relieved of his duties and restricted to quarters. C., Police Department all immediately began investigations of the crime. The military police, the Army's Criminal Investigation Division (CID), the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Fayetteville, N.

Respondent also sustained injury on that occasion. Captain MacDonald's wife and their two daughters were murdered on February 17 at respondent's quarters.