UNITED STATES
v.
ROSE

U.S. | 1976-10-12
No. 75-1535
429 U.S. 5 Supreme Court of the United States (1976) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 50 L. Ed. 2d 5 · 97 S. Ct. 26 · 1976 U.S. LEXIS 164 · SCDB 1976-002
Cited by 15 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The Supreme Court held that double jeopardy does not prevent the government from appealing a post-conviction suppression order when the appeal could result in reinstatement of a guilty verdict, regardless of whether the conviction was rendered by jury or in a bench trial. The Court reversed the Tenth Circuit's conclusion that the government's appeal was barred by the Double Jeoparty Clause.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The operative facts herein are substantially identical to those in United States v. Morrison, ante, p. 1. Respondent’s ear was stopped by Border Patrol agents; a search disclosed marihuana. Respondent lost a motion to suppress and was found guilty after a bench trial. Following this trial, but before sentencing, the District Court, relying upon our decision in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266 (1973), granted respondent’s motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, as it did in Morrison, found the Government’s appeal barred by double jeopardy.

In United States v. Wilson, 420 U. S. 332 (1975), we held that double jeopardy would not bar a Government appeal if success on that appeal would result in the reinstatement of a verdict of guilty. The fact that the order of suppression here occurred after a general finding of guilt rendered by the court in a bench trial, rather than after a return of a verdict of guilty by a jury, is immaterial. Morrison, ante, p. 1. Double jeopardy, therefore, does not bar an appeal by the Government.

We grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand to that court for proceedings consistent herewith.

It is so ordered.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (U.S. 1978)
    …motion to suppress; a reversal of these rulings would require no further proceedings in the District Court, but merely a reinstatement of the finding of guilt.” Id., at 271. Accord, United States v. Kopp, 429 U. S. 121 (1976); United States v. Rose, 429 U. S. 5 (1976); United States v. Morrison, 429 U. S. 1 (1976). We, of course, do not suggest that a midtrial dismissal of a prosecution, in response to a defense motion on grounds unrelated to guilt or innocence, is necessarily improper. Such rulings may b…
  • People of the State OF Cal. ex rel. Cal. Dep't OF Fish & Game v. The Quechan Tribe OF Indians, 595 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1979)
    …ppeal. IV. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY It is a well-established rule that Indian tribes are immune from suit. Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58, 98 S.Ct. 1670, 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978); Puyallup Tribe v. Washington Game Dept., 433 U.S. 165, 172, 97 S.Ct. 26, 16, 53 L.Ed.2d 667 (1977); United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 309 U.S. 506, 512, 60 S.Ct. 653, 84 L.Ed. 894 (1940); Sekaquaptewa v. MacDonald, 591 F. 2d 1289, 1291; (9th Cir. 1979); Hamilton v. Nakai, 453 F. 2d 152, 158 (9th Ci…
  • Greene v. Massey, 546 F.2d 51 (5th Cir. 1977)
    …sful, would result only in the reinstatement of the guilty verdict. No further proceedings relating to guilt or innocence would be required. United States v. Morrison, 1976, - U.S. -, 97 S.Ct. 24, 50 L.Ed.2d 1, United States v. Rose, 1976, - U.S. -, 97 S.Ct. 26, 50 L.Ed.2d 5. On the same day Morrison and Rose were decided, the Supreme Court ruled that Government may appeal a District Court’s dismissal of an indictment which occurs after a hung jury mistrial but before a retrial. The reasoning was that Unit…

Previewing 3 of 5 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