U.S. v. Jaramillo

• Decision Date: 31 January 1975
• Docket Number: Nos. 74--1651,74--1652,s. 74--1651
• Citation: 510 F.2d 808
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Gregorio JARAMILLO, Appellee. UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Michael Eugene STURDEVANT, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 808

510 F.2d 808

30 A.L.R.Fed. 647

UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Gregorio JARAMILLO, Appellee.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Michael Eugene STURDEVANT, Appellee.

Nos. 74--1651, 74--1652.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 15, 1974.

Decided Jan. 31, 1975.

Kenneth E. Tilsen, St. Paul, Minn. and Robert C. Heeney, Rockville, Md., for appellees.

Edward R. Korman, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Before LAY and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, and TALBOT SMITH, Senior District Judge. ^*

HEANEY, Circuit Judge.

Appellees Gregorio Jaramillo and Michael Eugene Sturdevant were charged by indictment in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, with violating and attempting to violate 18 U.S.C. § 231(a)(3). ¹ The charges arose out of the occupation of Wounded Knee by members of the American Indian Movement. The case was transferred to the District of Nebraska pursuant to Rule 21(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Trial was to the court. After both sides had rested, the trial judge, by order denominated 'JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL,' found the appellees not guilty of the offense charged and released them from custody. The government appeals. We hold that we are without jurisdiction to hear the cause and dismiss the appeal.

The power of the government to appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant in a criminal case is conferred by statute. United States v. Sanges, 144 U.S. 310, 12 S.Ct. 609, 36 L.Ed. 445 (1892). Controlling in this case is 18 U.S.C. § 3731, as amended by the Omnibus Crime Control Act § 14(a), Pub.L. No. 91--644, 84 Stat. 1890 (1971). It reads in relevant part:

In a criminal case an appeal by the United States shall lie to a court of appeals from a decision, judgment, or order of a district court dismissing an indictment or information as to any one or more counts, except that no appeal shall lie where the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution prohibits further prosecution.

The provisions of this section shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes. * * *

The government attempts to fit this case to the statutory language by arguing: (1) the order of the District Court was in fact a dismissal and hence appealable; and (2) the statute allows government appeals in all cases where the appeal does not offend the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment and there is no offense here.

I.

The District Court's final disposition of the matter on the merits looked beyond the face of the record and was bottomed on facts adduced at trial. It was thus properly characterized as an acquittal. United States v. Sisson, 399 U.S. 267, 90 S.Ct. 2117, 26 L.Ed.2d 608 (1970).

The charging statute, 18 U.S.C. § 231(a)(3), requires, as an element of the government's proof, that the law enforcement officer affected by the appellees' acts be 'lawfully engaged in the lawful performance of his official duties incident to and during the commission of (the) civil disorder.' ² As part of its defense in chief, the appellees introduced evidence of the military involvement in the Wounded Knee operation. The purpose of this evidence was to show that the law enforcement officers were not 'lawfully engaged in the lawful performance' of their official duties, but were acting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1385, the posse comitatus statute. It reads:

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. * * *

The government concedes that the issue of lawfulness was determined by the District Court as the fact-finder but argues that the determination was in reality a dismissal under Rule 12 because it was based on a defense in law to the prosecution's evidence. It also argues that the District Court erred in entering this 'dismissal' on § 1385 grounds since even if the federal officers violated the section, the violation did not render their activities unlawful.

We find no merit to the government's assertion that the determination was a dismissal. The trial judge decided rightly or wrongly after both parties rested that 'lawful engagement' and 'lawful performance' were essential elements of the government's case and had to be proved by it. It looked beyond the face of the record, considered all of the evidence adduced at trial and decided that the government had failed to meet its burden. ³ This conclusion went to the very heart of the appellees' guilt or innocence, ⁴ and was properly characterized as an acquittal, ⁵ because the trial judge determined, on the basis of the evidence developed at trial, that the proof was insufficient to support beyond a reasonable doubt the allegations of the indictment. See United States v. Sisson, supra 399 U.S. at 290 n. 19, 90 S.Ct. 2117; United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 478 n. 7, 91 S.Ct. 547, 27 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971); Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 29(a). The statute does not provide for a government appeal from an acquittal. United States v. Brown, 481 F.2d 1035, 1039 (8th Cir. 1973) (dictum).

II.

Even if we accept for purposes of this appeal the government's contention that the statute permits an appeal in those criminal cases in which the appeal would not be barred by the double jeopardy provision of the Constitution, we cannot accept its argument that the Constitution would not be offended by this appeal from an acquittal.

The government's constitutional argument confronts the decisions of the Supreme Court that have held since Kepner v. United States, 195 U.S. 100, 24 S.Ct. 797, 49 L.Ed. 114 (1904), that the double jeopardy clause prohibits a government appeal from an acquittal in a criminal case. In the words of the Court in Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141, 82 S.Ct. 671, 7 L.Ed.2d 629 (1962) (Per Curiam):

The petitioners were tried under a valid indictment in a federal court which had jurisdiction over them and over the subject matter. * * * It terminated with the entry of a final judgment of acquittal as to each petitioner. The Court of Appeals thought, not without reason, that the acquittal was based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation. Nevertheless '(the) verdict of acquittal was final, and could not be reviewed * * * without putting (the petitioners) twice in jeopardy, and thereby violating the Constitution.' * * *

Id. at 143, 82 S.Ct. at 672 (Citations omitted.).

The government attempts to distinguish Kepner and Fong Foo by pointing out that a reversal on the merits in them would have resulted in a new trial, whereas a new trial would not be necessary here. ⁶ It argues that the central policy of the double jeopardy clause is the protection it affords the individual from the hazards of a second trial. See Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187, 78 S.Ct. 221, 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957). If a second trial is truly unnecessary, ⁷ it asserts that the public's interest in the even application of the criminal law and the conviction of the guilty outweighs any harm to the individual. Hence in such situations, the argument goes, the double jeopardy clause should not prohibit appellate jurisdiction. ⁸

The government conceded in oral argument, however, that this limiting of the earlier cases is to no avail unless the dictum in United States v. Sisson, supra, is disregarded. There, a reversal on the merits would not have resulted in a second trial because the government was appealing from an order of the trial judge setting aside the jury verdict of guilty. Yet, after finding that the trial judge had acquitted the defendant, and then ruling that the appeal was prohibited by statute, ⁹ the Court said:

* * * Quite apart from the statute, it is, of course, well settled that an acquittal can 'not be reviewed, on error or otherwise, without putting (the defendant) twice in jeopardy, and thereby violating the Constitution. * * * * *

Id. 399 U.S. at 289, 90 S.Ct. at 2129 (Citations omitted.).

We believe that the dictum has constitutional significance and that Sisson at least stands for the proposition that the government cannot appeal from a judgment of acquittal under the circumstances of this case. We are persuaded to this view by the long acceptance of Kepner v. United States, supra, and the discussion of a unanimous Court in Price v. Georgia, 398 U.S. 323, 90 S.Ct. 1757, 26 L.Ed.2d 300 (1970). ¹⁰

In Price, the defendant was charged in a state court with murder and convicted of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter. On appeal to the Court of Appeals of Georgia, the conviction was reversed. In the second trial, the state again charged the defendant with murder, rejecting his plea of double jeopardy. The defendant was again convicted of voluntary manslaughter and appealed to the Supreme Court. That Court reversed the conviction, holding that the acquittal of murder in the first trial was final and could not be retried. It said:

* * * (T)he holding in the Kepner case--that there could be no appeal from an acquittal because such a verdict ended an accused's jeopardy--was applicable.

* * * (T)his Court has consistently refused to rule that jeopardy for an offense continues after an acquittal * * *

Id. at 329, 90 S.Ct. at 1761.

This unequivocal statement that the double jeopardy clause makes final a judgment of acquittal even after appeal by the defendant accords the 'dictum' in Sisson the weight of an alternative holding.

In the light of these decisions of the Supreme Court, we fail to see how we can accept jurisdiction of this case consistent with the double jeopardy clause. Moreover, we believe there are good policy reasons for dismissing the government's appeal.

The relief sought necessarily requires that we remand the case to the trial court for further findings on the basis...