ÿWPC  ˆÈ.G·¢Rš†<æ+™á(MiÀׂêsÉk ¢»¤<²‘ð'ëÆ„ö”ÛŠ‚¨=¾x„ñ¯…OËxÉ•’ùÁ§A¶…k)Üd¼‡ª‹­æ¥ö‘¼?8K9CÞ%Ùp!hCŸÆý.°þÜlU,?‹}]»‚l |%îUN á®ÚºQ¬£ W3Ùo‹ƒiJYº*²QAš×ƒ´]¹]›ÕX„]aL¦¿a¾NbúY'ÑóÊm(uƒ¢-Û¹Rä>M£†¦ÙI =zÑZÎæ'œêD#ÞÃRÜɦ“‰Ãw`gjºþ0;ÏéÆï³²dG§´ƒx¸{»L_Hê&@´" IJîQäœe¯ÇÏ®qM®‡%¤Ì…7ìB@„$¾*JbÑ€Iû&~óií%©¥<á&\øˆŒ"‹¬b`Óð#µlœ½Ž„´·¾##4§(.¤54$|»Hz_fÞg¹e€ÒMù%:DShÐ †ß¸eðd|-cS^ž†N\ 2Ó—tïÉ-ž+Ì÷yÀuݦÊËd/÷†ƒþŠI\³îÛilÖXädE*H±šõimSâ]1<›ð!–×nfû›Ñh«àµpÆÃòìÛ(Ì‘\àÄ›engõuOŸ:•(#Á0¢ñ %“ 0(™fÁaÃN×>ÙU@NW^ Ywe4i}Œ mŽ 0D¥ 0ÆénT¯ N  UF EK bM U UF] ] ] ] UF£ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ Bé ˜HP LaserJet 5/5M - StandardÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 ˜Ý ƒh$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€¥7X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTo€be€sure,€a€defendant€might€be€able€to€test,€by€an€end„of„Ð ° Ðcase€appeal,€an€order€òòrefusingóó€to€constitute€dual€juries.€€However,Ð †Ö Ðthat€is€not€the€type€of€order€with€which€we€are€confronted.X($¡¡øÀTABLE Aq:\template\OPINIONS\SELYA.WPT(ÖÃ9 Z(Times New Roman ¬2s 6xª2y File3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(d:2h$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€¥—X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@<þ6X9`(CourierTTXXwþ6X@ÉüQX@ÿ.Courier New Regular- ù- <4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular.Courier New Regular dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRY,3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ ? ÑÙ*ƒ !Ùò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡°nG°XXÔÔ‡ °v¢°°°nGÔUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÐ ° ÐÔ#†°nG°° °v¢ä#ÔÔ#†X¥7X°°nGÅ#ÔÔ‡„ ª„XX¥7ÔÔ‡ „Ö_„„„ ªÔFor€the€First€CircuitÔ#†„ ª„„ „Ö_›#ÔÔ#†X¥7X„„ ª|#Ôó óÐ „Ô ÐÓ¹ÓÌÌßA€') °°` dE< ` AßÐ  à ÐÌÌNo.€05„1014Ð K › ÐÌà@ìàUNITED€STATES€OF€AMERICA,ˆÐ ÷ G  Ðà@””%ìàAppellant,ˆÐ Í   ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ yÉ  ÐÌà@<< ìàDARRYL€GREEN€ET€AL.,ˆÐ %u  Ðà@ÄÄìàDefendants,€Appellees.ˆÐ ûK  ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<¦` AßÐ §÷ ÐÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÐ ŒÜ ÐÌà@0 0 ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€MASSACHUSETTSˆÐ 8ˆ ÐÌà@xx!ìà___________________ˆÐ ä4 ÐÌNo.€05„1151Ð à ÐÌà@<< ìàIN€RE€UNITED€STATES,ˆÐ <Œ Ðà@XX%ìàPetitioner.ˆÐ b ÐÌà@<< ìà____________________ˆÐ ¾ ÐÌà@  ìàPETITION€FOR€A€WRIT€OF€MANDAMUS€TO€THEˆÐ jº  Ðà@dd ìàUNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURT€FOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€MASSACHUSETTSˆÐ @ ! ÐÌà@<< ìà____________________ˆÐ ì!<# ÐÌà@P P ìà[Hon.€Nancy€Gertner,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ ˜#è% ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<C%` AßÐ D%” ' ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÐ )&y!) ÐÌÓ  Óà@@((ìà€Selya,€Lynch€and€Lipez,Ð Õ'%#+ ÐòòÌCircuit€Judgesóó.Ð )Ñ$- ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<,+` AßÐ -+}&/ ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòSteven€L.€Laneóó,€Attorney,€Appellate€Section,€CriminalÐ ,b'1 ÐDivision,€U.S.€Dep't€of€Justice,€with€whom€òòMichael€J.€Sullivanóó,Ð è,8(2 ÐUnited€States€Attorney,€òòTheodore€B.€Heinrichóó€and€òòLori€J.€Holikóó,Ð ¾-)3? ÐAssistant€United€States€Attorneys,€were€on€brief,€for€appellant.Ð ° Ðà  àòòMax€D.€Sternóó,€with€whom€òòRandolph€Gioiaóó,€òòElizabeth€Billowitzóó,Ð †Ö ÐòòSarah€Jennings€Huntóó,€òòWilliam€Brennanóó,€and€òòBrennan,€Trainor,€BillmanÐ \¬ Ð&€Bennett,€LLPóó€were€on€brief,€for€appellee€Darryl€Green.Ð 2‚ Ðà  àòòMax€D.€Sternóó,€with€whom€òòPatricia€Garinóó,€òòKenneth€M.€Resnikóó,Ð X ÐòòJeffrey€Wiesneróó,€òòStern,€Shapiro,€Weissberg€&€Garin,€LLPóó,€òòDavid€P.Ð Þ. ÐHooseóó,€and€òòKatz,€Sasson,€Hoose€&€Turnbillóó€were€on€brief,€forÐ ´  Ðappellee€Branden€Morris.Ð Š Ú Ðà  àòòJohn€H.€Cunha,€Jr.óó,€with€whom€òòGeorge€F.€Gormleyóó,€òòChristie€M.Ð ` ° ÐCharlesóó€and€òòGeorge€F.€Gormley,€P.C.óó€were€on€brief,€for€appelleeÐ 6 †  ÐJonathan€Hart.Ð  \  Ðà  àòòJohn€H.€Cunha,€Jr.óó,€with€whom€òòStephen€Superóó€and€òòCunha€&Ð â 2  ÐHolcomb,€P.C.óó€were€on€brief,€for€appellee€Edward€Washington.Ð ¸  Ðà  àòòJudith€H.€Mizneróó€on€brief€for€Federal€Defender€Office,€amicusÐ ŽÞ  Ðcuriae.Ð d´  ÐÌÔ*‹ƒ'ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ ` `  ‹‹ÐÓ| ÓÐ SItÄ  `Êâ@38483„„‰`Êâ@‰‹‹SÐÌMay€12,€2005Ð Jš ÐÐ RHC p" `Êâ@38483 `Êâ@ ‹‹RÐÐ(tÄ   (ÐÓ  ÓÙ* !ÙÐ  &v ÐÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÓÓÑ8€¥7XXdÖXXdÖ8ÑÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*Óà ` àò òSELYA,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.ó ó€€The€district€court,€presiding€overÐ ° Ða€complex€multi„count,€multi„defendant€capital€case,€issued€aÐ xÈ Ðpretrial€order€calling€for€the€empanelment€of€two€separate€juries:€Ð $t Ðone€to€determine€guilt€and€the€other,€totally€different€inÐ Ð  Ðcomposition,€to€determine€whether€to€impose€the€death€penalty.€Ð | Ì ÐBefore€us,€the€government€asserts€that€the€Federal€Death€PenaltyÐ ( x  ÐAct€(FDPA)€forbids€this€binary€course€of€action.€€We€conclude€thatÐ Ô$  Ðthe€district€court's€unprecedented€order€presents€a€basic,Ð €Ð  Ðpreviously€undecided€question€of€substantial€public€importance€and,Ð ,|  Ðaccordingly,€entertain€the€government's€petition€for€advisoryÐ Ø( Ðmandamus.€€Exercising€that€jurisdiction,€we€proceed€to€correct€andÐ „Ô Ðcountermand€the€district€court's€erroneous€interpretation€of€theÐ 0€ ÐFDPA.Ð Ü, Ðò òI.€€BACKGROUNDó óÐ ˆØ Ðà ` àIn€2003,€a€federal€grand€jury€sitting€in€the€District€ofÐ P  ÐMassachusetts€charged€five€men€in€a€seventeen„count€supersedingÐ üL Ðindictment.€€The€golconda€of€charges€included€racketeering,€18Ð ¨ø  ÐU.S.C.€ðð€1962(c);€racketeering€conspiracy,€òòid.óó€ðð€1962(d);€murder€inÐ T!¤" Ðaid€of€racketeering,€òòid.óó€ðð€1959(a)(1);€and€conspiracy€to€commitÐ #P$ Ðmurder€in€aid€of€racketeering,€òòid.óó€ðð€1959(a)(5).€€Four€of€the€fiveÐ ¬$ü& Ðdefendants€ð"ð€Darryl€Green,€Branden€Morris,€Jonathan€Hart,€andÐ X&¨!( ÐEdward€Washington€ð"ð€are€parties€to€this€proceeding.€€We€focusÐ (T#* Ðâ âexclusively€on€them.Ð °)%, Ðà ` àThe€indictment€alleged€that€the€foursome€were€all€membersÐ ° Ðâ âof€the€Esmond€Street€Posse,€variously€described€as€a€Boston€streetÐ \¬ Ðgang€or€criminal€enterprise,€which€was€engaged€in€peddlingÐ X Ðmarijuana€and€crack€cocaine.€€Count€Sixteen€of€the€indictmentÐ ´  Ðcharged€Green€and€Morris,€but€not€Hart€or€Washington,€with€theÐ ` ° Ðmurder€of€one€Terrell€Gethers€in€aid€of€racketeering.€€Under€theÐ  \  Ðcontrolling€statute,€18€U.S.C.€ðð€1959(a)(1),€that€was€a€capitalÐ ¸  Ðcharge,€carrying€a€potential€penalty€of€death€for€the€two€affectedÐ d´  Ðdefendants.Ð `  Ðà ` àIn€response€to€a€flurry€of€severance€motions,€òòseeóó€Fed.€R.Ð ¼  ÐCrim.€P.€14,€the€district€court€ruled€that€the€capital€defendantsÐ h¸ Ðshould€not€be€tried€together.€€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòGreenóó,€324€F.€Supp.Ð d Ð2d€311,€324„25€(D.€Mass.€2004)€(òòGreen€Ióó).€€Relatedly,€the€courtÐ À Ðdecreed€that€Hart€would€be€tried€with€Green€and€that€WashingtonÐ l¼ Ðwould€be€tried€with€Morris.€€òòId.óó€at€326„28.€€These€rulings€broughtÐ h Ðto€the€fore€a€concern€previously€voiced€by€the€non„capitalÐ Ä Ðdefendants,€Hart€and€Washington,€who€had€posited€that€it€would€beÐ pÀ  Ðunfair€to€force€them€to€trial€before€a€death„qualified€jury.Ð !l" Ðà ` àWe€pause€to€place€this€concern€into€proper€perspective.€Ð È"$ ÐThe€Supreme€Court€has€held€that,€in€a€capital€case,€the€governmentÐ t$Ä& Ðmay€exclude€from€jury€service€those€individuals€whose€personalÐ  &p!( Ðopposition€to€the€death€penalty€is€such€that€it€would€prevent€orÐ Ì'#* Ðsubstantially€interfere€with€their€ability€to€apply€the€law.€Ð x)È$, ÐòòWainwrightóó€v.€òòWittóó,€469€U.S.€412,€424€(1985).€€The€process€ofÐ $+t&. Ðwinnowing€out€such€conscientious€objectors€in€jury€selection€isÐ ° Ðknown€as€death„qualification.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àA€capital€case€potentially€involves€two€separate€trialÐ X Ðphases.€€In€the€first€phase,€the€jury€determines€whether€theÐ ´  Ðcapital€defendant€is€guilty€of€the€crime(s)€charged.€€If€theÐ ` ° Ðdefendant€is€convicted€of€a€capital€offense,€a€second€proceedingÐ  \  Ðensues€to€determine€whether€that€offense,€under€the€circumstancesÐ ¸  Ðof€the€case,€warrants€the€death€sentence.€€As€a€single€juryÐ d´  Ðnormally€hears€both€the€guilt€and€penalty€phases,€death„Ð `  Ðqualification€occurs€as€part€of€the€original€jury€empanelment.Ð ¼  Ðà ` àThe€defendants€in€this€case€insist€that€the€process€ofÐ h¸ Ðselecting€a€single€death„qualified€jury€to€consider€both€the€guiltÐ d Ðand€penalty€phases€has€the€correlative€effect€of€putting€a€jury€inÐ À Ðthe€box€that€will€be€more€prone€to€convict.€€To€support€thisÐ l¼ Ðnotion,€the€defendants€proffered€below€statistical€evidenceÐ h Ðpurporting€to€indicate€that€African„Americans€were€significantlyÐ Ä Ðunderrepresented€in€the€local€jury€venire€and€that€death„Ð pÀ  Ðqualification€would€further€reduce€the€possibility€that€anyÐ !l" ÐAfrican„Americans€ð"ð€a€group€more€likely€to€oppose€the€death€penaltyÐ È"$ Ðthan€non„African„Americans€ð"ð€would€be€able€to€serve€on€the€jury.€Ð t$Ä& ÐThe€defendants€also€tendered€statistical€evidence€indicating€aÐ  &p!( Ðsimilar,€though€less€pronounced,€effect€as€to€potential€femaleÐ Ì'#* Ðjurors.€€The€defendants€then€submitted€studies€purporting€to€showÐ x)È$, Ðthat€death„qualified€jurors€are€significantly€more€likely€toÐ $+t&. Ðconvict€than€non„death„qualified€jurors.€€Hart€and€WashingtonÐ ° Ðargued€that€these€perceived€consequences€of€death„qualificationÐ \¬ Ðwere€particularly€unfair€as€applied€to€defendants€who€were€notÐ X Ðthemselves€facing€the€death€penalty.Ð ´  Ðà ` àIn€responding€to€these€plaints,€the€district€courtÐ ` ° Ðconceded€that€the€defendants€(including€the€non„capital€defendants)Ð  \  Ðhad€no€constitutional€entitlement€to€a€non„death„qualified€jury.€Ð ¸  ÐòòSeeóó€òòGreen€Ióó,€324€F.€Supp.€2d€at€330€(citing€òòBuchananóó€v.€òòKentuckyóó,Ð d´  Ð483€U.S.€402€(1987)).€€The€court,€however,€did€not€stop€there;€itÐ `  Ðviewed€the€defendants'€importunings€as€raising€a€case€managementÐ ¼  Ðissue€within€the€realm€of€trial€court€discretion.€€òòId.óó€€Ð h¸ Ðà ` àNoting€the€concerns€enumerated€by€the€non„capitalÐ d Ðdefendants€along€with€the€potential€strain€on€judicial€resourcesÐ À Ðthat€would€accompany€a€further€proliferation€of€the€number€ofÐ l¼ Ðtrials€needed,€the€court€devised€two€potential€solutions€andÐ h Ðinvited€briefing€on€them.€€One€entailed€selecting€a€single€juryÐ Ä Ð(including€the€maximum€number€of€alternates)€for€each€trial,€butÐ pÀ  Ðdeferring€death„qualification€until€after€the€guilt€phase€hadÐ !l" Ðconcluded.€€If€a€capital€conviction€ensued,€the€court€would€thenÐ È"$ Ðattempt€to€death„qualify€the€jury€before€the€penalty€phase€beganÐ t$Ä& Ðand,€if€the€number€of€remaining€jurors€and€alternates€fell€belowÐ  &p!( Ðthe€requisite€twelve,€would€discharge€that€jury€and€empanel€a€new,Ð Ì'#* Ðdeath„qualified€jury€exclusively€for€the€penalty€phase.€€òòId.óó€atÐ x)È$, Ð331.€€The€second€proposal€contemplated€selecting€two€distinctÐ $+t&. Ðjuries€at€the€outset,€one€(non„death„qualified)€to€hear€the€guiltÐ ° Ðphase€and€the€other€(death„qualified)€to€hear€the€penalty€phase.€Ð \¬ ÐòòId.óóÐ X Ðà ` àIn€the€briefing€that€followed,€the€government€denigratedÐ ´  Ðboth€options€and€the€defendants€lobbied€for€the€second.€€OnÐ ` ° ÐNovember€3,€2004,€the€district€court€ordered€two€juries€empaneledÐ  \  Ðfor€each€of€the€scheduled€trials€(one€to€adjudicate€guilt€and€theÐ ¸  Ðsecond,€if€needed,€to€fix€the€nature€of€the€penalty).€€òòUnitedÐ d´  ÐStatesóó€v.€òòGreenóó,€343€F.€Supp.€2d€23,€25€(D.€Mass.€2004)€(òòGreen€IIóó).€Ð `  ÐThe€court€determined€that€the€applicable€provision€of€the€FederalÐ ¼  ÐDeath€Penalty€Act,€18€U.S.C.€ðð€3593(b),€did€not€require€a€unitaryÐ h¸ Ðjury.€€òòId.óó€€Even€if€it€did,€the€court€held,€the€defendants€wereÐ d Ðentitled€to€waive€the€requirement.€€òòId.óóÐ À Ðà ` àThe€government€appealed€this€order€and€filed€a€protectiveÐ l¼ Ðpetition€for€a€writ€of€mandamus€under€the€All€Writs€Act,€28€U.S.C.Ð h Ððð€1651(a).€€We€turn€first€to€the€jurisdictional€question€and€thenÐ Ä Ðto€the€merits€of€the€lower€court's€order.Ð pÀ  Ðò òII.€€APPELLATE€JURISDICTIONó óÐ !l" Ðà ` àThe€government's€roadmap€to€review€traces€severalÐ ä"4$ Ðpossible€avenues€through€which€our€jurisdiction€may€attach.€€We€canÐ $à& Ðentertain€an€interlocutory€appeal,€the€government€says,€because€theÐ <&Œ!( Ðorder€appealed€from€is€a€collateral€order,€that€is,€an€order€thatÐ è'8#* Ðconclusively€determines€an€important€legal€question,€which€isÐ ”)ä$, Ðcompletely€separate€from€the€merits€of€the€underlying€action€and€isÐ @+&. Ðeffectively€unreviewable€by€means€of€a€archetypical€end„of„caseÐ ° Ðappeal.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòRhode€Islandóó€v.€òòU.S.€EPAóó,€378€F.3d€19,€25€(1stÐ \¬ ÐCir.€2004)€(noting€circumstances€in€which€interlocutory€orders€areÐ X Ðimmediately€appealable€under€the€collateral€order€doctrine);€òòIn€reÐ ´  ÐNineteen€Appeals€Arising€Out€of€San€Juan€Dupont€Plaza€Hotel€FireÐ ` ° ÐLitig.óó,€982€F.2d€603,€608„09€(1st€Cir.€1992)€(similar);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóóÐ  \  ÐòòCohenóó€v.€òòBeneficial€Indus.€Loan€Corp.óó,€337€U.S.€541,€545„47€(1949).Ð ¸  Ðà ` àWe€view€the€use€of€the€collateral€order€doctrine€asÐ d´  Ðproblematic€in€the€circumstances€of€this€case.€€This€court€has€beenÐ `  Ðwary€of€creating€running€room€for€back„door€attempts€to€evade€theÐ ¼  Ðlongstanding€rule€that€appeals€by€the€government€in€criminal€casesÐ h¸ Ðmust€be€specifically€authorized€by€statute.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð d ÐòòWatsonóó,€386€F.3d€304,€307„08€(1st€Cir.€2004);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð À ÐòòKaneóó,€646€F.2d€4,€5„7€(1st€Cir.€1981).€€This€wariness€arises,€inÐ l¼ Ðpart,€because€of€a€realization€that€criminal€matters€are€differentÐ h Ðð"ð€and€special€concerns€counsel€against€permitting€governmentÐ Ä Ðappeals€in€criminal€cases€under€the€collateral€order€doctrine.€€òòSeeóóÐ pÀ  ÐòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòHornóó,€29€F.3d€754,€768„69€(1st€Cir.€1994).€€AmongÐ !l" Ðthem€are€"speedy€trial€and€double€jeopardy€concerns."€€òòId.óó€at€768;Ð È"$ Ðòòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòMcVeighóó,€106€F.3d€325,€330„32€(10th€Cir.Ð t$Ä& Ð1997)€(per€curiam)€(citing€òòHornóó€and€noting€that€the€"principalÐ  &p!( Ðprudential€bases€are€the€avoidance€of€undue€delay,€and€theÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âavoidance€of€harassment"€(citations€omitted)).Ð x)È$, Ðà ` àAt€a€bare€minimum,€then,€allowing€a€government€appeal€toÐ ° Ðâ âgo€forward€by€way€of€the€collateral€order€doctrine€in€a€criminalÐ \¬ Ðcase€requires€both€that€"the€conditions€of€the€collateral€orderÐ X Ðdoctrine€are€satisfied,€and€[that]€the€prudential€concerns€thatÐ ´  Ðtraditionally€militate€against€allowing€the€government€to€appeal€inÐ ` ° Ða€criminal€case€favor,€or€are€at€least€neutral€in€respect€to,€theÐ  \  Ðavailability€of€a€government€appeal."€€òòHornóó,€29€F.3dòòóó€at€769.€€ThisÐ ¸  Ðcourt€has€found€such€concerns€overcome€only€on€rare€occasions,€suchÐ d´  Ðas€where,€prior€to€the€entry€of€the€order€appealed€from,€guilt€hasÐ `  Ðbeen€determined,€sentence€imposed,€"and€no€prospect€of€piecemealÐ ¼  Ðlitigation€endures."€€òòId.óó€at€768„69.€€Because€it€is€arguable€howÐ h¸ Ðthese€prudential€concerns€cut€in€this€case,€we€question€whether€anÐ d Ðappeal€from€a€dual€jury€order€in€a€criminal€case€comes€within€theÐ À Ðnarrow€purview€of€the€collateral€order€doctrine.€€This€doubt€is€allÐ l¼ Ðthe€more€profound€because€of€our€uncertainty€about€whether€an€orderÐ h Ðaffecting€sentencing€procedure€can€be€considered€"completelyÐ Ä Ðseparate"€from€the€merits€of€the€underlying€action.€€òòSeeóó€òòSellóó€v.Ð pÀ  ÐòòUnited€Statesóó,€539€U.S.€166,€176€(2003)€(permitting€collateralÐ !l" Ðappeal€in€criminal€case€when€issue€was€wholly€distinct€fromÐ È"$ Ð"questions€concerning€trial€procedures");€òòMcVeighóó,€106€F.3d€at€328,Ð t$Ä& Ð332€(holding€order€barring€victim„impact€witnesses€from€observingÐ  &p!( Ðguilt€phase€of€capital€trial€not€sufficiently€separate€from€meritsÐ Ì'#* Ðof€case);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòPattersonóó,€882€F.2d€595,€599€(1st€Cir.Ð x)È$, Ð1989)€(holding€that€the€"sentencing€process€.€.€.€is€an€integralÐ $+t&. Ðaspect"€of€a€criminal€case€and€"is€not€in€any€sense€independent€ofÐ ° Ðthe€main€course€of€the€prosecution"€(citations€and€internalÐ \¬ Ðquotation€marks€omitted)).Ð X Ðà ` àIn€the€final€analysis,€we€need€not€definitively€resolveÐ ´  Ðthe€appealability€question.€€Review€is€available,€in€ourÐ ` ° Ðdiscretion,€by€way€of€mandamus.€€We€explain€briefly.Ð  \  Ðà ` àBroadly€stated,€there€are€two€types€of€mandamus.€€TheÐ ¸  Ðmore€common€is€supervisory€mandamus.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòIn€re€AtlanticÐ d´  ÐPipe€Corp.óó,€304€F.3d€135,€139„40€(1st€Cir.€2002);€òòHornóó,€29€F.3d€atÐ `  Ð769€&€n.19.€€That€strain€of€mandamus€generally€is€limited€toÐ ¼  Ðsituations€in€which€the€party€seeking€the€writ€has€a€clearÐ h¸ Ðentitlement€to€relief,€yet€is€threatened€with€irreparable€harmÐ d Ðshould€that€relief€be€delayed€or€deferred.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòIn€reÐ À ÐSterling„Surezóó,€306€F.3d€1170,€1172€(1st€Cir.€2002);€òòIn€reÐ l¼ ÐCargill,€Inc.óó,€66€F.3d€1256,€1260€(1st€Cir.€1995).ò òó ó€€The€defendantsÐ h Ðargue€that€neither€requirement€is€met€here€ð"ð€and€they€are€probablyÐ Ä Ðcorrect€with€respect€to€the€second€requirement.Ð pÀ  Ðà ` àThe€government€suggests€that€it€shares€an€interest€withÐ !l" Ðthe€public€at€large€in€seeing€that€the€courts€properly€apply€theÐ È"$ ÐFDPA€ð"ð€an€interest€that€would€be€irreparably€harmed€if€the€districtÐ t$Ä& Ðcourt€proceeded€with€dual€juries€despite€a€contrary€statutoryÐ  &p!( Ðcommand.€€This€suggestion€lacks€force.€€If€a€blow€to€the€publicÐ Ì'#* Ðinterest€caused€by€a€court's€erroneous€interpretation€of€aÐ x)È$, Ðstatutory€provision€were€to€constitute€irreparable€injury,€the€barÐ $+t&. Ðwould€be€set€so€low€as€to€render€the€requirement€superfluous.€€AsÐ ° ÐJustice€Rehnquist€wrote,€"to€issue€a€writ€of€mandamus€under€suchÐ \¬ Ðcircumstances€would€undermine€the€settled€limitations€upon€theÐ X Ðpower€of€an€appellate€court€to€review€interlocutory€orders."€€òòWillóóÐ ´  Ðv.€òòCalvert€Fire€Ins.€Co.óó,€437€U.S.€655,€661€(1978)€(plurality€op.)Ð ` ° Ð(citation€and€internal€quotation€marks€omitted).Ð  \  Ðà ` àThe€second€type€of€mandamus€ð"ð€known€as€advisory€mandamusÐ ¸  Ðð"ð€is€more€apt€in€the€circumstances€at€hand.€€Mandamus,€in€any€form,Ð d´  Ðis€an€extraordinary€remedy,€but€advisory€mandamus€is€available€onlyÐ `  Ðin€a€tiny€subset€of€cases.€€Such€cases€are€those€that€present€novelÐ ¼  Ðquestions€of€great€significance€which,€if€not€immediatelyÐ h¸ Ðaddressed,€are€likely€to€recur€and€to€evade€effective€review.€Ð d ÐòòHornóó,€29€F.3d€at€769.òòóó€€The€aim€of€advisory€mandamus,€then,€is€toÐ À Ðsettle€substantial€questions€of€law€in€circumstances€that€"wouldÐ l¼ Ðassist€other€jurists,€parties,€[and]€lawyers."€€òòId.óó€at€770.€€ToÐ h Ðobtain€relief€under€this€species€of€mandamus,€the€petitioner€doesÐ Ä Ðnot€need€to€show€irreparable€harm.€€òòSeeóó€òòAtlantic€Pipeóó,€304€F.3d€atÐ pÀ  Ð140.Ð !l" Ðà ` àThis€case€lends€itself€to€an€application€of€the€advisoryÐ È"$ Ðmandamus€doctrine.€€The€district€court's€interpretation€of€sectionÐ t$Ä& Ð3593(b)€is€unprecedented,€and€it€hardly€needs€explaining€why€properÐ  &p!( Ðdeath€penalty€procedure€is€of€great€importance€to€theÐ Ì'#* Ðadministration€of€justice.€€If€the€propriety€of€the€districtÐ x)È$, Ðcourt's€interpretation€is€not€evaluated€here€and€now,€it€would€veryÐ $+t&. Ðlikely€evade€review.€€On€the€one€hand,€if€successive€juries€convictÐ ° Ðand€then€impose€the€death€penalty,€the€government€will€not€be€ableÐ \¬ Ðto€appeal€this€favorable€verdict,€òòseeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòMoranóó,€393Ð X ÐF.3d€1,€12€(1st€Cir.€2004),€and€the€defendants,€having€urged€theÐ ´  Ðdistrict€court€to€abandon€a€unitary€jury€in€favor€of€dual€juries,Ð ` ° Ðcould€not€be€heard€to€complain€about€this€procedural€innovation,Ð  \  Ðòòseeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòAngiuloóó,€897€F.2d€1169,€1216€(1st€Cir.€1990)Ð ¸  Ð(holding€that€a€criminal€defendant€cannot€complain€of€invitedÐ d´  Ðerror).ò òó ó€€On€the€other€hand,€if€the€first€jury€acquits€or€the€secondÐ `  Ðjury€declines€to€impose€capital€punishment,€the€defendants€willÐ ¼  Ðhave€no€incentive€to€appeal€and€double€jeopardy€principles€willÐ h¸ Ðprevent€the€government€from€doing€so.€€òòSeeóó€òòWatsonóó,€386€F.3d€at€308;Ð d Ðòòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòSattazahnóó€v.€òòPennsylvaniaóó,€537€U.S.€101,€106€(2003)Ð À Ð(noting€that€"the€Double€Jeopardy€Clause€[applies]€to€capital„Ð l¼ Ðsentencing€proceedings€where€.€.€.€the€prosecution€[must]€proveÐ h Ðcertain€statutorily€defined€facts€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€toÐ Ä Ðsupport€a€sentence€of€death").׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð pÀ  Ðà ` àTo€cinch€matters,€the€question€will€almost€certainlyÐ !l" Ðrecur.€€There€is€a€longstanding€belief€in€certain€quarters,€sharedÐ È"$ Ðby€the€defendants€in€this€case,€that€an€accused's€guilt€orÐ t$Ä& Ðinnocence€is€likely€to€be€judged€less€harshly€by€a€non„death„Ð  &p!( Ðqualified€jury.€€Indeed,€a€federal€district€court€in€Texas€alreadyÐ Ì'#* Ðhas€relied€on€the€procedural€innovation€implemented€in€this€case€asÐ ° Ðprecedent€for€issuing€a€similar€order€in€a€different€capital€case.€Ð \¬ ÐòòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòWilliamsóó,€400€F.3d€277,€282€&€n.4€(5th€Cir.Ð X Ð2005)€(per€curiam)€(vacating€district€court's€order).ò òó ó€Ð ´  ÐConsequently,€we€deem€this€case€an€appropriate€candidate€for€theÐ ` ° Ðexercise€of€our€advisory€mandamus€authority.Ð  \  Ðò òIII.€€ANALYSISó óÐ ¸  Ðà ` àThe€district€court's€primary€justification€for€its€dualÐ €Ð  Ðjury€order€rests€with€its€interpretation€of€the€relevant€section€ofÐ ,|  Ðthe€FDPA.€€The€court€concluded€that€18€U.S.C.€ðð€3593(b)€permits€aÐ Ø( Ðcourt€to€decide,€òòbeforeóó€òòtrialóó€òòcommencesóó,€that€good€cause€exists€toÐ „Ô Ðdischarge€the€original€jury€once€it€has€adjudicated€the€defendant'sÐ 0€ Ðguilt€and€then€empanel€a€new€jury€for€the€penalty€phase.€€òòGreen€IIóó,Ð Ü, Ð343€F.€Supp.€2d€at€30;€òòGreen€Ióó,€324€F.€Supp.€2d€at€331.€€As€aÐ ˆØ Ðsecondary€ground,€the€court€held€that€if€the€statute€does€requireÐ 4„ Ða€unitary€jury€to€be€empaneled€at€the€outset€of€the€trial,€theÐ à0 Ðdefendant€may€unilaterally€waive€that€requirement.€€òòSeeóó€òòGreen€IIóó,Ð ŒÜ  Ð343€F.€Supp.€2d€at€30„31;€òòGreen€Ióó,€324€F.€Supp.€2d€at€331„32.Ð 8!ˆ" Ðà ` à18€U.S.C.€ðð€3593(b)€provides€that€if€a€defendant€is€foundÐ ä"4$ Ðguilty€or€pleads€guilty€to€a€capital€offense,€there€"shall"€be€aÐ $à& Ðseparate€sentencing€hearing.€€òòId.óó€€The€statute€further€providesÐ <&Œ!( Ðthat€"[t]he€hearing€shall€be€conducted€before€the€jury€thatÐ è'8#* Ðdetermined€the€defendant's€guilt."€€òòId.óó€ðð€3593(b)(1).€€The€statuteÐ ”)ä$, Ðproceeds€to€carve€out€a€series€of€exceptions.€€These€contemplateÐ @+&. Ðthat€the€penalty€phase€may€be€conducted€before€a€jury€empaneled€forÐ ° Ðthat€purpose€alone€if€ð"ð€and€only€if€ð"ð€one€of€four€circumstancesÐ \¬ Ðobtains:Ð X ÐÓÓà8 ` à(A)€the€defendant€was€convicted€upon€a€plea€ofÐ ´  Ðguilty;Њ Ú` x` x Ðà8 ` à(B)€the€defendant€was€convicted€after€a€trialÐ ` ° Ðbefore€the€court€sitting€without€a€jury;Ð6 † ` x` x Ðà8 ` à(C)€the€jury€that€determined€the€defendant'sÐ  \  Ðguilt€was€discharged€for€good€cause;€orÐâ 2 ` x` x Ðà8 ` à(D)€after€initial€imposition€of€a€sentenceÐ ¸  Ðunder€this€section,€reconsideration€of€theÐ ŽÞ  Ðsentence€under€this€section€isÐ d´  Ðnecessary....€Ð:Š ` x` x ÐÌÓÓòòId.óó€ðð€3593(b)(2).€€Finally,€the€statute€provides€that€the€penaltyÐ æ6 Ðphase€may€be€tried€"before€the€court€alone,€upon€the€motion€of€theÐ ’â Ðdefendant€and€with€the€approval€of€the€attorney€for€theÐ >Ž Ðgovernment."€€òòId.óó€ðð€3593(b)(3).Ð ê: Ðà ` àThe€question€before€us€concerns€the€proper€interpretationÐ –æ Ðof€section€3593(b)(2)(C).€€The€government€argues€that€this€is€aÐ B’ Ðnarrow€jury„discharge€provision€that€only€comes€into€play€if,€òòafteróóÐ î> Ðòòaóó€òòfindingóó€òòofóó€òòguiltóó,€good€cause€to€discharge€the€original€juryÐ šê Ðarises.€€The€defendants€argue€that€this€is€a€broader,€moreÐ F –! Ðmalleable€provision,€one€that€should€be€construed€against€theÐ ò!B# Ðbackdrop€of€a€trial€court's€extensive€case€management€powers.€€OnÐ ž#î% Ðthis€basis,€the€defendants€exhort€us€to€hold€that€sectionÐ J%š ' Ð3593(b)(2)(C)€requires€only€that€the€discharge€of€the€guilt€phaseÐ ö&F") Ðjury€must€occur€before€a€new€penalty€phase€jury€is€empaneled.€€AsÐ ¢(ò#+ Ða€necessary€corollary€of€this€interpretation,€the€defendants€reasonÐ N*ž%- Ðthat€the€district€court€may€decide€at€any€time€ð"ð€even€in€advance€ofÐ ú+J'/ Ðtrial€ð"ð€that€it€will€discharge€the€guilt€phase€jury€for€what€itÐ ° Ðdeems€to€be€good€cause€and€empanel€a€new€jury€for€the€penaltyÐ \¬ Ðphase.Ð X Ðà ` àIn€mulling€the€validity€of€these€competing€claims,€weÐ ´  Ðstart€with€the€text€of€the€statute.€€òòSeeóó€òòSepulvedaóó€v.€òòUnitedÐ ` ° ÐStatesóó,€330€F.3d€55,€64€(1st€Cir.€2003).€€Section€3593(b)(2)(C)Ð  \  Ðsays€that€a€new€penalty€phase€jury€will€hear€the€case€if€"the€juryÐ ¸  Ðthat€determined€the€defendant's€guilt€was€discharged€for€goodÐ d´  Ðcause."€€That€phrasing€tells€us€a€great€deal€about€Congress'sÐ `  Ðintent.€€The€use€of€the€word€"determined,"€in€the€past€tense,€makesÐ ¼  Ðclear€that€the€phrase€"discharged€for€good€cause"€refers€toÐ h¸ Ðdischarge€for€events€arising€òòafteróó€the€guilt€phase€has€beenÐ d Ðconcluded.€€òòSeeóó€òòJonesóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€527€U.S.€373,€418€(1999)Ð À Ð(Ginsburg,€J.,€dissenting)€(opining€that€"[d]ischarge€for€'goodÐ l¼ Ðcause'€under€ðð€3593(b)(2)(C)€.€.€.€is€most€reasonably€read€to€coverÐ h Ðguilt„phase€.€.€.€juror€disqualification€due€to,€òòe.g.óó,€exposure€toÐ Ä Ðprejudicial€extrinsic€information€or€illness");€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòid.óó€at€381Ð pÀ  Ð(majority€op.)€(expressing€agreement€with€dissent's€interpretationÐ !l" Ðof€the€phrase€"good€cause");€òòWilliamsóó,€400€F.3d€at€282.ò òòòóóó ó€€This€makesÐ È"$ Ðperfect€sense:€€jurors€who€originally€were€qualified€to€sit€may,€byÐ t$Ä& Ðsome€untoward€exposure€or€affliction,€become€incapacitated€afterÐ  &p!( Ðthe€guilt€phase€ends€but€before€the€penalty€phase€ends€so€that€aÐ Ì'#* Ðproperly€empaneled€jury€that€has€determined€guilt€will€not€be€ableÐ x)È$, Ðto€continue€to€serve.Ð $+t&. Ðà ` àThe€structure€of€a€statute€often€informs€its€text.€€òòSeeóóÐ ° ÐòòPlumleyóó€v.€òòS.€Container,€Inc.óó,€303€F.3d€364,€369€(1st€Cir.€2002);Ð \¬ ÐòòUnited€Techs.€Corp.óó€v.€òòBrowning„Ferris€Indus.,€Inc.óó,€33€F.3d€96,€99Ð X Ð(1st€Cir.€1994).ò òó ó€€Here,€the€structure€of€section€3593(b)€reinforcesÐ ´  Ðthe€reading€suggested€by€its€plain€language.€€The€default€rule,Ð ` ° Ðexpressed€in€subsection€(b)(1),€is€that€the€jury€that€determinesÐ  \  Ðthe€guilt€phase€of€a€federal€capital€case€shall€also€serve€as€theÐ ¸  Ðjury€that€determines€the€penalty€phase.€€That€provision€is€setÐ d´  Ðforth€first,€in€mandatory€language€and€without€condition.€Ð `  ÐSubsection€(b)(2)€spells€out€four€exceptions€to€the€default€rule€ofÐ ¼  Ðsubsection€(b)(1).€€That€subsection€is€conditional;€it€directs€thatÐ h¸ Ða€new€jury€shall€be€empaneled€for€the€penalty€phase€"if"€one€ofÐ d Ðfour€situations€arises.Ð À Ðà ` àThe€common€denominator€among€these€four€exceptions€isÐ l¼ Ðthat€they€all€appear€to€represent€situations€in€which€it€is€eitherÐ h Ðimpossible€or€impracticable€to€apply€the€default€rule€of€a€unitaryÐ Ä Ðjury.€€This€is€unarguably€true€of€subparagraphs€(A)€and€(B);€eachÐ pÀ  Ðof€those€subparagraphs€deals€with€a€situation€in€which€guilt€is€notÐ !l" Ðdetermined€by€a€jury€at€all.€€That€is€also€readily€apparent€withÐ È"$ Ðrespect€to€subparagraph€(D).€€The€vast€majority€ð"ð€if€not€all€ð"ð€ofÐ t$Ä& Ðsituations€requiring€the€reconsideration€of€an€imposed€sentenceÐ  &p!( Ðwill€be€those€that€occur€when€direct€or€collateral€review€hasÐ Ì'#* Ðidentified,€months€or€years€later,€some€defect€in€the€originalÐ x)È$, Ðsentencing€proceeding.€€Assuming€that€a€jury€participated€in€theÐ $+t&. Ðoriginal€proceeding,€it€would€have€been€long€since€discharged€andÐ ° Ðrecalling€it€would,€for€a€variety€of€reasons,€be€infeasible.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àStructurally,€this€leads€to€the€conclusion€thatÐ X Ðsubparagraph€(C)€should€be€read€as€referring€to€those€situations€inÐ ´  Ðwhich€empaneling€a€fresh€penalty€phase€jury€is€unavoidable€becauseÐ ` ° Ðof€some€exigency€associated€with,€or€arising€òòafteróó,€theÐ  \  Ðdetermination€of€the€defendant's€guilt.€€This€is€the€most€naturalÐ ¸  Ð(and,€therefore,€the€favored)€reading€of€the€statute.€€SoÐ d´  Ðconstrued,€subsection€(b)€presents€a€coherent,€unified€theme:€€aÐ `  Ðsingle,€properly€constituted€jury€will€hear€both€phases€of€aÐ ¼  Ðfederal€capital€trial€unless€circumstances€definitively€rule€outÐ h¸ Ðthat€option.Ð d Ðà ` àThe€defendants€read€the€statute€differently.€€They€inviteÐ À Ðus€to€find€that€the€function€of€subsection€(b)(2)(C)€is€to€vest€inÐ l¼ Ðthe€district€court€wide€discretion€as€to€whether€one€or€two€juriesÐ h Ðis€appropriate€in€a€particular€capital€case.€€In€their€view,Ð Ä ÐCongress's€choice€of€language€was€intended€only€to€prevent€two€suchÐ pÀ  Ðjuries€from€being€sworn€simultaneously.€€This€is€resupinateÐ !l" Ðreasoning.Ð È"$ Ðà ` àFirst€and€foremost,€the€defendants'€reading€contradictsÐ t$Ä& Ðthe€structure€of€the€statute€by€turning€the€"good€cause"€language,Ð  &p!( Ðclearly€written€in€the€form€of€an€exception,€into€a€thresholdÐ Ì'#* Ðquestion€to€be€posed€at€the€time€of€the€original€jury€empanelmentÐ x)È$, Ðin€every€capital€case.€€Moreover,€even€if€we€were€disposed€toÐ $+t&. Ðignore€the€structure€of€the€statute€ð"ð€which€we€are€not€ð"ð€construingÐ ° Ðthe€language€of€subparagraph€(C)€as€providing€wide€trial€courtÐ \¬ Ðdiscretion€over€the€deployment€of€dual€juries€would€require€aÐ X Ðlinguistic€contortion€to€reach€a€result€that€Congress€could€haveÐ ´  Ðaccomplished€much€more€simply€and€straightforwardly.€€Courts€oughtÐ ` ° Ðto€construe€statutes,€whenever€possible,€"in€a€commonsense€manner,Ð  \  Ðhonoring€plain€meaning,€and€avoiding€absurd€or€counter„intuitiveÐ ¸  Ðresults."€€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòCarrollóó,€105€F.3d€740,€744€(1st€Cir.Ð d´  Ð1997)€(internal€citations€omitted).€€The€defendants'€interpretationÐ `  Ðof€the€FDPA€violates€all€three€of€these€tenets.Ð ¼  Ðà ` àOf€course,€there€are€circumstances,€albeit€few€and€farÐ h¸ Ðbetween,€in€which€the€apparent€meaning€of€a€statute€must€yield€toÐ d Ðother€considerations.€€òòSeeóó€òòGreebelóó€v.€òòFTP€Software,€Inc.óó,€194€F.3dÐ À Ð185,€192€(1st€Cir.€1999)€("Even€seemingly€straightforward€textÐ l¼ Ðshould€be€informed€by€the€purpose€and€context€of€the€statute.");Ð h Ðòòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòN.H.€Hemp€Council,€Inc.óó€v.€òòMarshallóó,€203€F.3d€1,€6€(1stÐ Ä ÐCir.€2000)€(suggesting€that€there€sometimes€may€be€"sound€reasonÐ pÀ  Ðfor€departure"€from€the€apparent€meaning€of€statutory€language).€Ð !l" ÐThe€defendants€strive€to€persuade€us€that€this€is€such€an€instanceÐ È"$ Ðð"ð€that€the€substantial€discretion€enjoyed€by€district€courts€inÐ t$Ä& Ðmanaging€cases€must€inform€our€reading€of€the€statute.€€To€thisÐ  &p!( Ðend,€they€cite€our€decision€in€òòAtlantic€Pipeóó€for€the€propositionÐ Ì'#* Ðthat€Congress€must€speak€in€"clear€and€unmistakable"€terms€in€orderÐ x)È$, Ðto€"cabin€the€district€courts'€inherent€powers."€€304€F.3d€at€142.Ð $+t&. Ðà ` àThe€defendants€misread€òòAtlantic€Pipeóó,€which€squarelyÐ ° Ðholds€that€a€court's€"inherent€powers€cannot€be€exercised€in€aÐ \¬ Ðmanner€that€contradicts€an€applicable€statute€or€rule."€€òòId.óó€atÐ X Ð143.€€This€is€just€such€a€case:€€section€3593€limns€a€set€ofÐ ´  Ðprocedural€rules€applicable€to€federal€capital€cases.€€A€briefÐ ` ° Ðglance€at€the€other€subsections,€apart€from€subsection€(b),€makesÐ  \  Ðthis€transparently€clear.€€Subsection€(a)€mandates€that€theÐ ¸  Ðgovernment€"shall"€provide€pretrial€notice€of€its€intent€to€seekÐ d´  Ðthe€death€penalty€and€specify€the€aggravating€factors€that€itÐ `  Ðintends€to€prove€in€support€of€that€penalty.€€18€U.S.C.€ðð€3593(a).€Ð ¼  ÐSubsection€(c)€delineates€the€procedures€for€how€the€parties€mustÐ h¸ Ðgo€about€proving€aggravating€or€mitigating€factors.€€òòId.óó€ðð€3593(c).€Ð d ÐSubsection€(d)€sets€forth€a€requirement€for€"special€findings"Ð À Ðidentifying€which€aggravating€and€mitigating€factors€were€proven.€Ð l¼ ÐòòId.óó€ðð€3593(d).€€Subsection€(e)€memorializes€the€requirement€thatÐ h Ðthe€factfinder€"shall€consider"€whether€the€aggravating€factorsÐ Ä Ðoutweigh€the€mitigating€factors€in€the€case,€and€then€(if€a€jury,Ð pÀ  Ðby€unanimous€vote)€"shall€recommend"€the€penalty.€€òòId.óó€ðð€3593(e).€Ð !l" ÐSubsection€(f)€directs€that€the€court€"shall€instruct€the€jury"Ð È"$ Ðthat€it€cannot€consider€the€race,€color,€religious€belief,€nationalÐ t$Ä& Ðorigin,€or€gender€of€the€defendant€or€the€victim€in€decidingÐ  &p!( Ðwhether€to€apply€the€death€penalty.€€òòId.óó€ðð€3593(f).Ð Ì'#* Ðà ` àThese€provisions€are€of€a€piece€with€subsection€(b)Ð x)È$, Ðwhich,€as€previously€described,€specifies€that€the€jury€thatÐ $+t&. Ðdetermined€guilt€"shall"€hear€the€penalty€phase€unless€one€of€fourÐ ° Ðnarrow€exceptions€applies.€€All€of€these€provisions€employÐ \¬ Ðmandatory€language€directing€that€particular€rules€of€procedureÐ X Ð"shall"€be€followed.€€This€refutes€any€notion€that€CongressÐ ´  Ðintended€the€district€courts€to€retain€discretion€to€disregard€anyÐ ` ° Ðor€all€of€the€prescribed€rules.€€òòSeeóó€òòLexecon€Inc.óó€v.€òòMilberg€WeissÐ  \  ÐBershad€Hynes€&€Lerachóó,€523€U.S.€26,€35€(1998)€(explaining€thatÐ ¸  Ðstatutory€procedural€rules€couched€"in€terms€of€the€mandatoryÐ d´  Ð'shall'€.€.€.€normally€create[]€an€obligation€impervious€toÐ `  Ðjudicial€discretion").Ð ¼  Ðà ` àThe€bottom€line€is€this:€€where€Congress€has€provided€aÐ h¸ Ðspecific€panoply€of€rules€that€must€be€followed,€the€districtÐ d Ðcourt's€discretionary€powers€simply€do€not€come€into€play.€€BecauseÐ À Ðthis€is€such€an€instance,€there€is€no€reason€to€distort€the€plainÐ l¼ Ðmeaning€of€the€statutory€text€in€an€effort€to€preserve€thoseÐ h Ðpowers.€€We€hold,€therefore,€that€the€language€of€the€exception€inÐ Ä Ðsection€3593(b)(2)(C),€("the€jury€that€determined€the€defendant'sÐ pÀ  Ðguilt€was€discharged€for€good€cause€.€.€.€")€refers€exclusively€toÐ !l" Ða€jury€that€has€returned€a€guilty€verdict€in€a€federal€capitalÐ È"$ Ðcase.€€òòAccordóó€òòWilliamsóó,€400€F.3d€at€282€(holding€that€the€"'goodÐ t$Ä& Ðcause'€language€pertains€to€discharging€a€jury€that€has€òòalreadyóóÐ  &p!( Ðòòdecidedóó€the€defendant's€guilt"€and€that€"[t]he€provision€does€notÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âallow€a€pretrial€option€for€a€bifurcated€jury").Ð x)È$, Ðà ` àIn€a€further€effort€to€justify€its€order,€the€court€belowÐ ° Ðâ âmade€an€alternate€holding:€€that€"to€the€extent€that€ðð€3593€can€beÐ \¬ Ðread€to€require€a€unitary€jury,€defendants€[may]€waive€thatÐ X Ðrequirement."€€òòGreen€IIóó,€343€F.€Supp.€2d€at€25.€€We€reject€thatÐ ´  Ðholding€as€well.Ð ` ° Ðà ` àSection€3593€sets€forth€a€set€of€general€rules€thatÐ  \  Ðgovern€all€parties€and€the€court€itself.€€In€those€instances€inÐ ¸  Ðwhich€the€statute€does€create€rights€that€accrue€to€only€one€sideÐ d´  Ðor€the€other,€the€statute€is€explicit.€€For€example,€sectionÐ `  Ð3593(c)€specifies€that€the€government€"shall€open€the€argument"€andÐ ¼  Ðthe€defendant€"shall€[then]€be€permitted€to€reply."€€So€too€sectionÐ h¸ Ð3593(b)(3),€which€makes€specific€reference€to€the€ability€of€theÐ d Ðparties€jointly€to€waive€certain€of€the€rules€(e.g.,€the€right€toÐ À Ða€sentencing€jury).€€The€statute€does€not€offer€any€such€optionÐ l¼ Ðwith€respect€to€the€unitary€jury€rule€of€subsection€(b)(1).€€TheÐ h Ðintentional€inclusion€of€a€waiver€mechanism€in€one€part€of€theÐ Ä Ðstatute€persuasively€indicates€that€the€exclusion€of€such€a€waiverÐ pÀ  Ðprovision€in€another€part€of€the€same€statute€was€intentional.€€òòSeeóóÐ !l" ÐòòDuncanóó€v.€òòWalkeróó,€533€U.S.€167,€173€(2001)òòò òóóó ó€(describing€as€"well„Ð È"$ Ðsettled"€the€proposition€that€"where€Congress€includes€particularÐ t$Ä& Ðlanguage€in€one€section€of€a€statute€but€omits€it€in€anotherÐ  &p!( Ðsection€of€the€same€Act,€it€is€generally€presumed€that€CongressÐ Ì'#* Ðacts€intentionally€and€purposely€in€the€disparate€inclusion€orÐ x)È$, Ðexclusion"€(citation€and€internal€quotation€marks€omitted));Ð $+t&. ÐòòFrazieróó€v.€òòFairhaven€Sch.€Comm.óó,€276€F.3d€52,€68€(1st€Cir.€2002)Ð ° Ð(explaining€that€"in€harmony€with€the€maxim€òòinclusioóó€òòuniusóó€òòestóóÐ \¬ Ðòòexclusioóó€òòalteriusóó,€the€explicit€provision€of€remedies€within€aÐ X Ðstatute€cuts€sharply€against€the€implication€of€[others]").€€AÐ ´  Ðfederal€capital€defendant€can€no€more€waive€the€default€rule€of€aÐ ` ° Ðunitary€jury€than€the€government€can€waive€the€rule€that€requiresÐ  \  Ðthe€court€to€instruct€the€jury€to€disregard€the€defendant's€race.Ð ¸  Ðà ` àIf€more€were€needed€ð"ð€and€we€doubt€that€it€is€ð"ð€we€wouldÐ d´  Ðfind€it€surpassingly€difficult€to€believe€that€a€statute€thatÐ `  Ðrequires€government€approval€of€the€defendant's€motion€to€dispenseÐ ¼  Ðwith€a€sentencing€jury€would€sub€silentio€permit€a€defendant€toÐ h¸ Ðobtain€òòtwoóó€juries€as€of€right.€€With€respect€to€the€deployment€ofÐ d Ða€unitary€jury€in€a€federal€capital€case,€"Congress€intended€toÐ À Ðgive€no€options,€only€commands."€€òòWilliamsóó,€400€F.3d€at€282.€€AsÐ l¼ Ðsuch,€the€district€court's€order€cannot€be€sustained€on€the€basisÐ h Ðof€its€alternate€holding.ò òó óÐ Ä Ðà ` àOur€odyssey€is€not€yet€completed.€€The€government€invitesÐ pÀ  Ðus€to€pass€upon€the€validity€of€the€district€court's€suggestionÐ !l" Ðthat€it€might€defer€death„qualification€altogether€until€after€itÐ È"$ Ðtakes€a€verdict€on€the€issue€of€guilt€or€innocence.€€òòSeeóó€òòGreen€Ióó,Ð t$Ä& Ð324€F.€Supp.€2d€at€331.€€We€decline€the€invitation.€€Despite€theÐ  &p!( Ðnomenclature,€advisory€mandamus€does€not€permit€federal€courts€toÐ Ì'#* Ðissue€advisory€opinions.€€òòSeeóó€òòRhode€Islandóó€v.€òòNarragansett€IndianÐ x)È$, ÐTribeóó,€19€F.3d€685,€705€(1st€Cir.€1994)€("Article€III€of€theÐ $+t&. ÐConstitution€forbids€courts€from€issuing€advisory€opinions€orÐ ° Ðanswering€hypothetical€questions.").€€The€suggestion€against€whichÐ \¬ Ðthe€government€seeks€protection€is€not€embodied€in€an€order€and€theÐ X Ðdefendants€have€thus€far€decried€the€concept.€€òòSeeóó€òòGreen€IIóó,€343€F.Ð ´  ÐSupp.€2d€at€25.€€Consequently,€there€is€no€live€controversy€as€toÐ ` ° Ðthat€suggestion.Ð  \  Ðò òIII.€€CONCLUSIONó óÐ ¸  Ðà ` àSection€3593(b)(2)€requires€that,€in€a€federal€capitalÐ €Ð  Ðcase,€the€jury€that€determines€guilt€also€must€determine€theÐ ,|  Ðpenalty€unless€one€of€four€exceptions€pertains.€€The€exceptionÐ Ø( Ðrelied€upon€by€the€lower€court€ð"ð€"discharge[]€for€good€cause,"€18Ð „Ô ÐU.S.C.€ðð€3593(b)(2)(C)€ð"ð€requires€that€there€be€a€dismissal€of€theÐ 0€ Ðjury€for€good€cause€òòafteróó€it€has€returned€a€verdict€in€the€guiltÐ Ü, Ðphase€of€the€trial.€€The€district€court's€order€is€incompatibleÐ ˆØ Ðwith€our€reading€of€this€statute.Ð 4„ Ðà ` àWe€are€not€unmindful€that€the€FDPA,€as€written,€mayÐ à0 Ðcomplicate€the€trial€of€mixed€capital€and€non„capital€charges.€€ButÐ ŒÜ  Ðour€task€is€to€attempt,€as€best€we€can,€to€follow€Congress'sÐ 8!ˆ" Ðprescription,€not€to€endeavor€to€improve€upon€it.€€The€SupremeÐ ä"4$ ÐCourt€has€made€it€pellucid€that€a€death„qualified€juryÐ $à& Ðconstitutionally€may€hear€and€determine€non„capital€charges,€atÐ <&Œ!( Ðleast€where€there€are€"significant€interests"€in€trying€a€non„Ð è'8#* Ðcapital€defendant€jointly€with€a€defendant€who€is€facing€a€capitalÐ ”)ä$, Ðcharge.€€òòSeeóó€òòBuchananóó,€483€U.S.€at€420.€€At€the€same€time,€thisÐ @+&. Ðlanguage€cannot€be€read€to€provide€the€government€with€an€absoluteÐ ° Ðentitlement€to€joint€capital/non„capital€trials€whenever€itÐ \¬ Ðpleases.€€Thus,€we€are€confident€that€the€district€court,€armedÐ X Ðwith€the€discretion€to€sever€charges€and€defendants,€will€be€ableÐ ´  Ðto€ensure€fundamental€fairness€in€the€trial€of€such€mixed€cases.Ð ` ° Ðà ` àWe€need€go€no€further.€€Inasmuch€as€the€central€issueÐ  \  Ðpresented€in€this€case€is€novel,€of€great€importance,€likely€toÐ ¸  Ðrecur,€and€otherwise€apt€to€evade€review,€we€grant€the€government'sÐ d´  Ðpetition€for€a€writ€of€mandamus,€vacate€the€dual€jury€order,€andÐ `  Ðremand€the€case€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€thisÐ ¼  Ðopinion.Ð h¸ ÐÌà ` àò òòòSo€Orderedóó.ó ó