# United States v. Jorn

> Supreme Court of the United States · January 25, 1971 · 400 U.S. 470

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424394

## Case

- **Full name:** United States v. Jorn
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** January 25, 1971
- **Citations:** 400 U.S. 470; 27 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 552; 91 S. Ct. 547; 27 L. Ed. 2d 543; 1971 U.S. LEXIS 146
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Burger
- **Judges:** Harlan, Burger, Douglas-, Marshall, Black, Brennan, Stewart, White, Blackmun, However
- **Cited by:** 1,793 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Reported overruled on other grounds by Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982) — not on the Supreme Court's list.
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 2
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424394

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that double jeopardy attached where the trial court precipitously discharged the jury upon concluding that the state's witnesses—taxpayers whom the defendant was alleged to have willfully assisted in the preparation of fraudulent tax returns—had not been properly advis…
- holding that trial judge did not exercise sound discretion in granting mistrial after he precipitously, and without warning to the parties, discharged the jury because he refused to believe the prosecuting attorney’s assurances that taxpayer witnesses had been given adequate w…
- finding the "trial judge made no effort to exercise a sound discretion" where he "acted so abruptly in discharging the jury that, had the prosecutor been disposed to suggest a continuance, or the defendant to object to the discharge of the jury, there would have been no opport…
- holding the “doctrine of manifest necessity stands as a command to trial judges not to foreclose the defendant’s option until a scrupulous exercise of judicial discretion leads to the conclusion that the ends of public justice would not be served by a continuation of the proce…
- holding the trial judge acted so abruptly that the parties had no opportunity to suggest alternatives to mistrial and “made no effort to exercise a sound discretion” to assure that mistrial was manifestly necessary

## Opinion text

Me. Chief Justice Burger,
concurring.
I join in the plurality opinion and in the judgment of the Court not without some reluctance, however, since the case represents a plain frustration. of the right to *488 have this case tried, .attributable solely to the conduct of the trial judge, If the accused had brought about the erroneous mistrial ruling we would have a different case, but this record shows nothing to take appellee’s claims outside the classic mold of being twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Brennan believe that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal under 18. U. S. C. § 3731 because the action of the trial judge amounted to an acquittal of appellee and therefore there was no discretion left, to the trial judge to put appellee again in jeopardy. However, in view of a decision by a majority of the Court to reach the merits, they join the judgment of the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424394. Public record. Not legal advice.