Menna v. New York
Citation and Court
423 U.S. 61 (1975), Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
Menna had been held in contempt and sentenced for refusing to testify before a grand jury after receiving immunity. He later was indicted for the same refusal to testify. He pleaded guilty but then sought to raise a double jeopardy bar to the second prosecution on appeal.
Issue
Whether a guilty plea waives a defendant’s right to raise a double jeopardy claim on appeal when the claim is that the state lacked the power to prosecute him at all.
Holding
A guilty plea does not bar a subsequent double jeopardy claim when the claim goes to the government’s power to prosecute in the first instance, not merely to the factual guilt of the defendant.
Rule / Doctrine
While a guilty plea generally waives all non-jurisdictional defects, a double jeopardy claim that the state had no power to hale the defendant into court on a charge survives a guilty plea. This exception applies when the constitutional infirmity is that the prosecution itself was impermissible, not simply that the evidence was insufficient.
Significance
Menna carves out an important exception to the general rule that guilty pleas waive appellate claims. It stands for the principle that some constitutional defects are so fundamental — going to the state’s very authority to prosecute — that they survive even a knowing and voluntary guilty plea.