Geo Group, Inc. v. Menocal · ¶49

Our holdings in these cases relied on the premise that those two protections were not merely shields from criminal liability. They were instead “guarantee[s] against being . . . put to trial” at all. Abney, 431 U. S., at 661; accord, Hel stoski, 442 U. S., at 508 (“[T]he Speech or Debate Clause was designed to protect Congressmen . . . from the burden of defending themselves” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, although a court could review these defenses on appeal from a final judgment, a court could not fully vindicate their protections at that time. By the time of final judgment, the defendant would have already been exposed to trial, thereby suffering the very harm that these defenses exist to prevent. This line of reasoning suffced to render the orders in Abney and Helstoski “effectively unreviewable” on appeal from a final judgment. See Abney, 431 U. S., at 662.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.