Fong Foo v. United States Standard Coil Products Co v. United States

Decision Date19 March 1962
Docket NumberNos. 64,65,s. 64
Citation82 S.Ct. 671,369 U.S. 141,7 L.Ed.2d 629
PartiesFONG FOO et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES. STANDARD COIL PRODUCTS CO., Inc., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Arthur Richenthal, New York City, for petitioners.

Archibald Cox, Solicitor General, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petitioners, a corporation and two of its employees, were brought to trial before a jury in a federal district court upon an indictment charging a conspiracy and the substantive offense of concealing material facts in a matter within the jurisdiction of an agency of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1001, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 371, 1001. After seven days of what promised to be a long and complicated trial, three government witnesses had appeared and a fourth was in the process of testifying. At that point the district judge directed the jury to return verdicts of acquittal as to all the defendants, and a formal judgment of acquittal was subsequently entered.

The record shows that the district judge's action was based upon one or both of two grounds: supposed improper conduct on the part of the Assistant United States Attorney who was prosecuting the case, and a supposed lack of credibility in the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution who had testified up to that point.

The Government filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, praying that the judgment of acquittal be vacated and the case reassigned for trial. The court granted the petition, upon the ground that under the circumstances revealed by the record the trial court was without power to direct the judgment in question. Judge Aldrich concurred separately, finding that the directed judgment of acquittal had been based solely on the supposed improper conduct of the prosecutor, and agreeing with his colleagues that the district judge was without power to direct an acquittal on that ground. 286 F.2d 556. We granted certiorari to consider a question of importance in the administration of justice in the federal courts. 366 U.S. 959, 81 S.Ct. 1916, 6 L.Ed.2d 1252.

In holding that the District Court was without power to direct acquittals under the circumstances disclosed by the record, the Court of Appeals relied primarily upon two decisions of this Court, Ex parte United States, 242 U.S. 27, 37 S.Ct. 72, 61 L.Ed. 129 and Ex parte United States, 287 U.S. 241, 53 S.Ct. 129, 77 L.Ed. 283. In the first of these cases it was held that a district judge had no power to suspend a mandatory prison sentence, and that a writ of mandamus would lie to require the judge to vacate his erroneous order of suspension. In the second case the Court issued a writ of mandamus ordering a dis- trict judge to issue a bench warrant which he had refused to do, in the purported exercise of his discretion, for a person under an indictment returned by a properly constituted grand jury.

Neither of those decisions involved the guaranty of the Fifth Amendment that no person shall 'be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.' That constitutional provision is at the very root of the present case, and we cannot but conclude that the guaranty was violated when the Court of Appeals set aside the judgment of acquittal and directed that the petitioners be tried again for the same offense.

The petitioners were tried under a valid indictment in a federal court which had juridiction over them and over the subject matter. The trial did not terminate prior to the entry of judgment, as in Gori v. United States, 367 U.S. 364, 81 S.Ct. 1523, 6 L.Ed.2d 901. 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, '(t)he verdict of acquittal was final, and could not be reviewed * * * without putting (the petitioners) twice in jeopardy, and thereby violating the constitution.' United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 671, 16 S.Ct. 1192, 1195, 41 L.Ed. 300.

Reversed.

Mr. Justice WHITTAKER took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.

Mr. Justice HARLAN, concurring.

Were I able to find, as Judge Aldrich did, that the District Court's judgment of acquittal was based solely on the Assistant United States Attorney's alleged misconduct, I would think that a retrial of the petitioners would not be prevented by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Even assuming that a trial court may have power, in extreme circumstances, to direct a judgment of acquittal, instead of declaring a mistrial, because of a prosecutor's misconduct—a proposition which I seriously doubt—I do not think that such power existed in the circumstances of this case. But since an examination of the record leaves me unable, as it did the majority of the Court of Appeals, to attribute the action of the District Court to this factor alone, I concur in the judgment of reversal.

Mr. Justice CLARK, dissenting.

The Court speaks with such expanse that I am obliged to dissent. It says that because 'a final judgment of acquittal' was entered pursuant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
413 cases
  • Com. v. Bolden
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • April 28, 1977
    ...at 669, 16 S.Ct. at 1194. Cf. United States v. Sisson, 399 U.S. 267, 90 S.Ct. 2117, 26 L.Ed.2d 608 (1970); Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141, 82 S.Ct. 671, 7 L.Ed.2d 629 (1962). See also Note, Government Appeals of 'Dismissals' in Criminal Cases, 87 Harv.L.Rev. 1822 (1974). The proble......
  • Commonwealth v. Hogan
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • October 5, 1978
    ... ... Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Pennsylvania ... Constitutions would ... is instead measured by the evolving standard of due ... process. An allegation of intentional ... See ... Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141, 82 S.Ct ... ...
  • Commonwealth v. Potter
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • March 23, 1978
    ... ... Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution of the United States ... It is our view that it was not, and ... The ... "manifest necessity" standard exists because the ... defendant has a "valued ... See, e ... g., Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141, 143, 82 S.Ct ... ...
  • State v. Melvin
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • September 23, 2021
    ...174 L.Ed.2d 78 (2009). Thus, "[e]ven if the verdict is ‘based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation,’ Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141, 143, 82 S.Ct. 671, 7 L.Ed.2d 629 (1962), its finality is unassailable," Yeager, 557 U.S. at 122-23, 129 S.Ct. 2360. In Apprendi and Watts, the Un......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • State's Burden of Production As To Elements of the Crime
    • United States
    • Maryland State Bar Association Warnken's Maryland Criminal Procedure (MSBA) Chapter 25 Burden of Production
    • Invalid date
    ...even if the legal ruling of acquittal was incorrect. Accord Evans v. Michigan, 133 S. Ct. 1069 (2013); Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141, 143 (1962); see In re Kevin E., 402 Md. 624, 632 (2008); State v. Ghajari, 346 Md. 101, 109 (1997); Brooks, 299 Md. at 155. It is not an acquittal,......
  • Traditional Double Jeopardy
    • United States
    • Maryland State Bar Association Warnken's Maryland Criminal Procedure (MSBA) Chapter 21 Double Jeopardy
    • Invalid date
    ...the same offense even when acquittal is "based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation." Id. at 683 (quoting Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141, 143 (1962)). In Caldwell v. State, 164 Md. App. 612, 651 (2005), the Court of Special Appeals held that the judgment of acquittal barred re-......
  • What's wrong with a little more double jeopardy? A 21st century recalibration of an ancient individual right.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 44 No. 3, June 2007
    • June 22, 2007
    ...generally RUDSTEIN, supra note 17, at 110-12. (75.) Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 503 (1978) (quoting Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141,143 (1962)); see also Alogna, supra note 60, at 1134 (discussing the tension between finality and accuracy, which are "the primary constitutio......
  • Recent Legal Developments
    • United States
    • Sage Criminal Justice Review No. 38-4, December 2013
    • December 1, 2013
    ...(2013).Florida v. Harris, — U.S. —, 133 S. Ct. 1050 (2013).Florida v. Jardines, — U.S. —, 133 S. Ct. — (2013).Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141 (1962).Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002).Henderson v. United States, — U.S. —, 133 S. Ct. 1121 (2013).Johnson v. Williams, — U.S. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT