THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN ABNEY V. UNITED STATES (1977) RECONCILED THE NEEDS OF A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT TO HAVE HIS RIGHTS PROTECTED, AND THE GOALS OF ORDER AND FINALITY IN THE SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE. THE HIGH COURT UNANIMOUSLY HELD THAT A PRETRIAL ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AN INDICTMENT ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS IS APPEALABLE AS A FINAL DECISION. UNDER SUFFICIENTLY COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES A DEFENDANT'S INTEREST IN IMMEDIATE APPEAL MAY THEREFORE OUTWEIGH THE STATE'S INTEREST. RATHER THAN STANDING AS THE SOLE EXCEPTION TO THE FINALITY RULE, THE ABNEY RULING OUGHT TO BE USED TO JUDGE THE MERITS OF ANY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL BY CRITERIA WHICH BALANCE THE INTERESTS OF AN EXPEDITED TRIAL AGAINST THE NEED FOR QUICK REVIEW AT ANY STAGE OF A PROCEEDING. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT FELT THAT SUMMARY CALENDARS AND OTHER PROCEDURES COULD ADEQUATELY SCREEN OUT FRIVOLOUS CLAIMS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE IMPEDE THE COURTS. OTHER AREAS OF THE LAW ARE SEEN TO HAVE THE SORT OF 'SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES' WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY THE IMMEDIATE APPEAL CALLED FOR UNDER ABNEY. SUGGESTED AREAS FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE ABNEY DOCTRINE INCLUDE THE CHALLENGING OF GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS, THE EVALUATION OF SPEEDY TRIAL CLAIMS, AND THE REVIEW OF DENIALS TO REOPEN A PRELIMINARY HEARING. CIRCUIT COURT DECISIONS ALREADY PERMIT SUCH IMMEDIATE REVIEW WITHIN CERTAIN LOCALITIES. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (TWK)