United States v. Jeffrey R. MacDonald

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Jeffrey R. MacDonald

585 F.2d 1211, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 8127

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 27, 1978

Docket75-1870, 75-1871

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 585 F.2d 1211 (United States v. Jeffrey R. MacDonald) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Jeffrey R. MacDonald, 585 F.2d 1211, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 8127 (4th Cir. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

*1213 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

*1213 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

585 F.2d 1211, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 8127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jeffrey-r-macdonald-ca4-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack