SAPIR
v.
UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1955-03-07
No. 534
348 U.S. 373 Supreme Court of the United States (1955) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 99 L. Ed. 426 · 75 S. Ct. 422 · 1955 U.S. LEXIS 1100 · SCDB 1954-036
Cited by 216 cases
Topics
Acquittal Judgment Of Acquittal Double Jeopardy Clause Newly Discovered Evidence

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Acquittal cases and more on FLexlaw

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted.

We believe that the judgment of the Court of Appeals of October 20, 1954, reversing and remanding this cause with instructions to dismiss the indictment was correct. It is not necessary for us to pass on the question presented under its subsequent judgment of November 17, 1954, directing a new trial. We vacate the latter judgment, which directed the new trial, and we reinstate the former one which instructed the trial court to dismiss the indictment.

Concurrence
Mr. Justice Douglas,

Mr. Justice Douglas,

concurring.

Petitioner was convicted by the jury of a conspiracy to defraud the United States. Petitioner moved for a judgment of acquittal. The District Court denied the motion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that that motion should have been granted, as the evidence was insufficient to convict. 216 F. 2d 722. It accordingly reversed and remanded the cause with instructions to dismiss the indictment. Later, the Government moved to amend the judgment so as to grant a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The Court of Appeals granted the motion of the Government.

The granting of a new trial after a judgment of acquittal for lack of evidence violates the command of the Fifth Amendment that no person shall “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”

The correct rule was stated in Kepner v. United States, 195 U. S. 100, at 130, “It is, then, the settled law of this court that former jeopardy includes one who has been acquitted by a verdict duly rendered . . . .” If the jury had acquitted, there plainly would be double jeopardy to give the Government another go at this citizen. If, as in the Kepner case, the trial judge had rendered a verdict of acquittal, the guarantee against double jeopardy would prevent a new trial of the old offense. I see no difference when the appellate court orders a judgment of acquittal for lack of evidence.

If petitioner had asked for a new trial, different considerations would come into play, for then the defendant opens the whole record for such disposition as might be just. See Bryan v. United States, 338 U. S. 552. And see Trono v. United States, 199 U. S. 521; Stroud v. United States, 251 U. S. 15, 18; Francis v. Resweber, 329 U. S. 459, 462. Moreover, a reversal by the appellate court on grounds of error that infected the trial would also be different, as Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, shows. But an acquittal on the basis of lack of evidence concludes the controversy, as the Kepner case holds, and puts it at rest under the protection of the Double Jeopardy Clause, absent a motion by the defendant for a new trial.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (70 total)

  • Delbert Lee Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1981)
    …so careful to characterize their decisions as reversals for lack of weight rather than legal insufficiency, was because of an understanding that Double Jeopardy disallowed retrial after reversal for insufficiency. See, e. g., Sapir v. United States, 348 U.S. 373, 75 S.Ct. 422, 99 L.Ed. 426 (1955); Smith v. State, 239 So. 2d 284 (Fla.2d DCA 1970). The Double Jeopardy Clause was written to prevent precisely what the Court’s decision today allows — successive attempts by the state to prove its accusations. Th…
  • Sosa v. The Honorable Oliver C. Maxwell, 234 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
    …am decision. This was sufficient to prompt them to reverse and remand for a new trial. Additionally, it is conceded that fundamental insufficiency of evidence was not raised on direct appeal in the supreme court. . See Sapir v. United States, 1955, 348 U.S. 373, 75 S.Ct. 422, 99 L.Ed. 426; Forman v. United States, 1960, 361 U.S. 416, 80 S.Ct. 481, 4 L.Ed.2d 412; People v. Brown, 1968, 99 Ill.App.2d 281, 214 X.E.2d 653; State v. Moreno, 1961, 69 N.M. 113, 364 P. 2d 594. . Watkins v. United States, 5th Cir.…
    1 / 2
  • Smith v. State, 239 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
    …967). . See Note, Police Discretion and the Judgment that a Crime has been Committed—Rape in Philadelphia, 117 U.Pa.L. Rev. 277 (1968). . Earl Marlatt, Are Xe Able, Published in The Methodist Hymnal at 413 (1966). . E. g., Sapir v. United States, 348 U.S. 373, 75 S.Ct. 422, 99 L.Ed. 426 (1955); Lampley v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 515. . Lowe v. State, 1944, 154 Fla. 730, 19 So. 2d 106; Garner v. State, 1938, 134 Fla. 252, 183 So. 739; Fuller v. State, 1926, 92 Fla. 873, 110 So. 528; Nims v. State…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 70 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw