Annotation 4 - Fifth Amendment
Reprosecution Following Acquittal .--That a defendant may not be retried following an acquittal is ''the most fundamental rule in the history of double jeopardy jurisprudence.'' 90 ''[T]he law attaches particular significance to an acquittal. To permit a second trial after an acquittal, however mistaken the acquittal may have been, would present an unacceptably high risk that the Govern ment, with its vastly superior resources, might wear down the defendant so that 'even though innocent he may be found guilty.''' 91 While in other areas of double jeopardy doctrine consideration is given to the public-safety interest in having a criminal trial proceed to an error- free conclusion, no such balancing of interests is permitted with respect to acquittals, ''no matter how erroneous,'' no matter even if they were ''egregiously erroneous.'' 92
The acquittal being final, there is no governmental appeal constitutionally possible from such a judgment. This was firmly established in Kepner v. United States, 93 which arose under a Philippines appeals system in which the appellate court could make an independent review of the record, set aside the trial judge's decision, and enter a judgment of conviction. 94 Previously, under the due process clause, there was no barrier to state provision for prosecutorial appeals from acquittals. 95 But there are instances in which the trial judge will dismiss the indictment or information without intending to acquit or in circumstances in which retrial would not be barred, and the prosecution, of course, has an interest in seeking on appeal to have errors corrected. Until 1971, however, the law providing for federal appeals was extremely difficult to apply and insulated from review many purportedly erroneous legal rulings, 96 but in that year Congress enacted a new statute permitting appeals in all criminal cases in which indictments are dis missed, except in those cases in which the double jeopardy clause prohibits further prosecution. 97 In part because of the new law, the Court has dealt in recent years with a large number of problems in this area.
Acquittal by Jury .--Little or no controversy accompanies the rule that once a jury has acquitted a defendant, government may not, through appeal of the verdict or institution of a new prosecution, place the defendant on trial again. Supp.97.1 Thus, the Court early held that, when the results of a trial are set aside because the first indictment was invalid or for some reason the trial's results were voidable, a judgment of acquittal must nevertheless remain undisturbed. 98
Acquittal by the Trial Judge .--Similarly, when a trial judge acquits a defendant, that action concludes the matter. 99 There is no possibility of retrial for the same offense. 100 But it may be difficult at times to determine whether the trial judge's action was in fact an acquittal or was a dismissal or some other action which the prosecution may be able to appeal. The question is ''whether the ruling of the judge, whatever its label, actually represents a resolution, correct or not, of some or all of the factual elements of the offense charged.'' 101 Thus, an appeal by the Government was held barred in a case in which the deadlocked jury had been discharged, and the trial judge had granted the defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal under the appropriate federal rule, explicitly based on the judgment that the Government had not proved facts constituting the offense. 102 Even if, as happened in Sanabria v. United States, 103 the trial judge erroneously excludes evidence and then acquits on the basis that the remaining evidence is insufficient to convict, the judgment of acquittal produced thereby is final and unreviewable.
Some limited exceptions do exist with respect to the finality of trial judge acquittal. First, because a primary purpose of the due process clause is the prevention of successive trials and not of prosecution appeals per se, it is apparently the case that if the trial judge permits the case to go to the jury, which convicts, and the judge thereafter enters a judgment of acquittal, even one founded upon his belief that the evidence does not establish guilt, the prosecution may appeal, because the effect of a reversal would be not a new trial but reinstatement of the jury's verdict and judgment thereon. 104 Second, if the trial judge enters or grants a motion of acquittal, even one based on the conclusion that the evidence is insufficient to convict, the prosecution may appeal if jeopardy had not yet attached in accordance with the federal standard. 105
Trial Court Rulings Terminating Trial Before Verdict .--If, after jeopardy attaches, a trial judge grants a motion for mistrial, ordinarily the defendant is subject to retrial; 106 if, after jeopardy attaches, but before a jury conviction occurs, the trial judge acquits, perhaps on the basis that the prosecution has presented insufficient evidence or that the defendant has proved a requisite defense such as insanity or entrapment, the defendant is not sub ject to retrial. 107 However, it may be that the trial judge will grant a motion to dismiss that is neither a mistrial nor an acquittal, but is instead a termination of the trial in defendant's favor based on some decision not relating to his factual guilt or innocence, such as prejudicial preindictment delay. 108 The prosecution may not simply begin a new trial but must seek first to appeal and overturn the dismissal, a course that was not open to federal prosecutors until enactment of the 1971 law. 109 That law has resulted in tentative and uncertain rulings with respect to when such dismissals may be appealed and further proceedings directed. In the first place, it is unclear in many instances whether a judge's ruling is a mistrial, a dismissal, or an acquittal. 110 In the second place, because the Justices have such differing views about the policies underlying the double jeopardy clause, determinations of which dismissals preclude appeals and further proceedings may result from shifting coalitions and from revised perspectives. Thus, the Court first fixed the line between permissible and impermissible appeals at the point at which further proceedings would have had to take place in the trial court if the dismissal were reversed. If the only thing that had to be done was to enter a judgment on a guilty verdict after reversal, appeal was constitutional and permitted under the statute; 111 if further proceedings, such as continuation of the trial or some further factfinding, was necessary, appeal was not permitted. 112 Now, but by a close division of the Court, the determining factor is not whether further proceedings must be had but whether the action of the trial judge, whatever its label, correct or not, resolved some or all of the factual elements of the offense charged in defendant's favor, whether, that is, the court made some determination related to the defendant's factual guilt or inno cence. 113 Such dismissals relating to guilt or innocence are functional equivalents of acquittals, whereas all other dismissals are functional equivalents of mistrials.
[Footnote 90] United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 571 (1977).
[Footnote 91] United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 91 (1978) (quoting Green v. United States, 355U.S. 184, 188 (1957)). For the conceptually related problem of trial for a ''separate'' offense arising out of the same ''transaction,'' see infra, pp.1299-1302.
[Footnote 92] Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 16 (1978); Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141, 143 (1962). For evaluation of those interests of the defendant that might support the absolute rule of finality, and rejection of all such interests save the right of the jury to acquit against the evidence and the trial judge's ability to temper legislative rules with leniency, see Westen & Drubel, Toward a General Theory of Double Jeopardy, 1978 Sup. Ct. Rev. 81, 122-37.
[Footnote 93] 195 U.S. 100 (1904). The case interpreted not the constitutional provision but a statutory provision extending double jeopardy protection to the Philippines. The Court has described the case, however, as correctly stating constitutional principles. See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 346 n.15 (1975); United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 113 n.13 (1980).
[Footnote 94] In dissent, Justice Holmes, joined by three other Justices, propounded a theory of ''continuing jeopardy,'' so that until the case was finally concluded one way or another, through judgment of conviction or acquittal, and final appeal, there was no second jeopardy no matter how many times a defendant was tried. Id. at 134. The Court has numerous times rejected any concept of ''continuing jeopardy.'' E.g., Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 192 (1957); United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 351 -53 (1975); Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 533 -35 (1975).
[Footnote 95] Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937). Palko is no longer viable. Cf. Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19 (1978).
[Footnote 96] The Criminal Appeals Act of 1907, 34 Stat. 1246, was ''a failure . . . , a most unruly child that has not improved with age.'' United States v. Sisson, 399 U.S. 267, 307 (1970). See also United States v. Oppenheimer, 242 U.S. 85 (1916); Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141 (1962).
[Footnote 97] Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control Act, Pub. L. No. 91- 644, 84 Stat. 1890, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3731. Congress intended to remove all statutory barriers to governmental appeal and to allow appeals whenever the Constitution would permit, so that interpretation of the statute requires constitutional interpretation as well. United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 337 (1974). See Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54, 69 n.23 (1978), and id. at 78 (Justice Stevens concurring).
[Footnote 97.1 (1996 Supplement)] What constitutes a jury acquittal may occasionally be uncertain. In Schiro v. Farley, 114 S. Ct. 783 (1994), the Court ruled that a jury's action in leaving the verdict sheet blank on all but one count did not amount to an acquittal on those counts, and that consequently conviction on the remaining count, alleged to be duplicative of one of the blank counts, could not constitute double jeopardy. In any event, the Court added, no successive prosecution violative of double jeopardy could result from an initial sentencing proceeding in the course of an initial prosecution.
[Footnote 98] In United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662 (1896), three defendants were placed on trial, Ball was acquitted and the other two were convicted, the two appealed and obtained a reversal on the ground that the indictment had been defective, and all three were again tried and all three were convicted. Ball's conviction was set aside as violating the clause; the trial court's action was not void but only voidable, and Ball had taken no steps to void it while the Government could not take such action. Similarly, in Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969), the defendant was convicted of burglary but acquitted of larceny; the conviction was set aside on his appeal because the jury had been unconstitutionally chosen. He was again tried and convicted of both burglary and larceny, but the larceny conviction was held to violate the double jeopardy clause. On the doctrine of ''constructive acquittals'' by conviction of a lesser included offense, see infra, p.1294.
[Footnote 99] United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 570 - 72 (1977); Sanabria v. United States 437 U.S. 54, 63 -65 (1978); Finch v. United States, 433 U.S. 676 (1977).
[Footnote 100] In Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141 (1962), the Court acknowledged that the trial judge's action in acquitting was ''based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation,'' but it was nonetheless final and could not be reviewed. Id. at 143.
[Footnote 101] United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 571 (1977).
[Footnote 102] Id. at 570-76. See also United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 87 -92 (1978); Smalis v. Pennsylvania, 476 U.S. 140 (1986) (demurrer sustained on basis of insufficiency of evidence is acquittal).
[Footnote 103] 437 U.S. 54 (1978). The double jeopardy applications of an appellate court's reversal for insufficient evidence are discussed infra, pp.1294-95.
[Footnote 104] In United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332 (1975), following a jury verdict to convict, the trial judge granted defendant's motion to dismiss on the ground of prejudicial delay, not a judgment of acquittal; the Court permitted a government appeal because reversal would have resulted in reinstatement of the jury's verdict, not in a retrial. In United States v. Jenkins, 420 U.S. 358, 365 (1975), the Court assumed, on the basis of Wilson, that a trial judge's acquittal of a defendant following a jury conviction could be appealed by the government because, again, if the judge's decision were set aside there would be no further proceedings at trial. In overruling Jenkins in United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (1978), the Court noted the assumption and itself assumed that a judgment of acquittal bars appeal only when a second trial would be necessitated by reversal. Id. at 91 n.7.
[Footnote 105] Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377 (1975) (after request for jury trial but before attachment of jeopardy judge dismissed indictment because of evidentiary insufficiency; appeal allowed); United States v. Sanford, 429 U.S. 14 (1976) (judge granted mistrial after jury deadlock, then four months later dismissed indictment for insufficient evidence; appeal allowed, because granting mistrial had returned case to pretrial status).
[Footnote 106] Supra, pp.1284-88.
[Footnote 107] Supra, p.1290.
[Footnote 108] United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332 (1975) (preindictment delay); United States v. Jenkins, 420 U.S. 358 (1975) (determination of law based on facts adduced at trial; ambiguous whether judge's action was acquittal or dismissal); United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (1978) (preindictment delay).
[Footnote 109] Supra, pp.1289-90. See United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 84 -86 (1978); United States v. Sisson, 399 U.S. 267, 291 -96 (1970).
[Footnote 110] Cf. Lee v. United States, 432 U.S. 23 (1977).
[Footnote 111] United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332 (1975) (after jury guilty verdict, trial judge dismissed indictment on grounds of preindictment delay; appeal permissible because upon reversal all trial judge had to do was enter judgment on the jury's verdict).
[Footnote 112] United States v. Jenkins, 420 U.S. 358 (1975) (after presentation of evidence in bench trial, judge dismissed indictment; appeal impermissible because if dismissal was reversed there would have to be further proceedings in the trial court devoted to resolving factual issues going to elements of offense charged and resulting in supplemental findings).
[Footnote 113] United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (1978) (at close of evidence, court dismissed indictment for preindictment delay; ruling did not go to determination of guilt or innocence, but, like a mistrial, permitted further proceedings that would go to factual resolution of guilt or innocence). The Court thought that double jeopardy policies were resolvable by balancing the defendant's interest in having the trial concluded in one proceeding against the government's right to one complete opportunity to convict those who have violated the law. The defendant chose to move to terminate the proceedings and, having made a voluntary choice, is bound to the consequences, including the obligation to continue in further proceedings. Id. at 95-101. The four dissenters would have followed Jenkins, and accused the Court of having adopted too restrictive a definition of acquittal. Their view is that the rule against retrials after acquittal does not, as the Court believed, ''safeguard determination of innocence; rather, it is that a retrial following a final judgment for the accused necessarily threatens intolerable interference with the constitutional policy against multiple trials.'' Id. at 101, 104 (Justices Brennan, White, Marshall, and Stevens). They would, therefore, treat dismissals as functional equivalents of acquittals, whenever further proceedings would be required after reversals.