 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
N. Carolina v Pearce
S. Ct. [1969]
Author:- Sam
Biers
Former Jeopardy
Relevant Facts: Consolidated cases involving the sentencing of dfs Rice and Pearce by the state courts after retrial.
Legal Issue(s): Whether Due Process or Equal Protection requires a state court, in pronouncing a new sentence after retrial, must give full credit for time served, and whether the imposition of a more severe sentence upon retrial is forbidden?
Court’s Holding: Yes, Yes
Procedure: State ct. imposed sentences after retrial, w/o justification, threefold what normally would have been given. Fed. judge declared them unconstitutional. Affirmed.
Law or Rule(s): The constitutional guarantee impose no limitation upon the power to retry a df who has succeeded in getting his first conviction set aside. The power to retry a df is the power to impose whatever sentence may be legally authorized.
Court Rationale: The guarantee against double jeopardy imposes no restrictions upon the length of a sentence imposed upon reconviction. The slate has been wiped clean, the new trial may result in either an acquittal or conviction. If a conviction double jeopardy does not restrict the imposition of an otherwise lawful single punishment for the offense in question. A man retried, if convicted, may receive a shorter sentence, the same sentence, or a longer sentence. The result depends on the independent variable stemming from the original trial. Neither the Equal Protection or D. Jeopardy clauses imposes an absolute bar against more severe sentences. If the trial ct imposes heavier sentences merely for having succeeded in getting his conviction set aside, then the df’s exercise of a right to appeal is not free nor unfettered. D. Process requires that appellate avenues be kept free of unreasoned distinctions that impede open and equal access to the courts. Whenever a judge imposes a more severe sentence after a new trial, the reasons must be based on objective, identifiable factual information not known at the time of the first trial.
Plaintiff’s Argument: D Jeopardy does not preclude being punished after a conviction was made void, and then retrial determined guilt.
Defendant’s Argument: Df seeking new trial can not be arbitrarily sentenced based upon their success in having the original conviction set aside w/o violating the constitution.