Sapir v. United States
| Citation | 99 L.Ed. 426,348 U.S. 373,75 S.Ct. 422 |
| Decision Date | 07 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 534,534 |
| Parties | Ben SAPIR, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted.
We believe that the judgment of the Court of Appeals of October 20, 1954, 216 F.2d 722, 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.
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 page 130, 24 S.Ct. 797, at page 805, 49 L.Ed. 114, '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, 70 S.Ct. 317, 94 L.Ed. 335. And see Trono v. United States, 199 U.S. 521, 26 S.Ct. 121, 50 L.Ed. 292; Stroud v. United States, 251 U.S. 15, 18, 40...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Hogan
... ... question presented in this appeal is whether the Double ... Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Pennsylvania ... Constitutions would be violated by a retrial of appellant ... under ... 114 (1904) ... Consequently, as Mr. Justice Douglas correctly perceived in ... Sapir (V. U.S. 348 U.S. 373, 75 S.Ct. 422, 99 L.Ed. 426), it ... should make no difference that the ... ...
-
Tibbs v. Florida
...57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978) (overruling Bryan v. United States, 338 U.S. 552, 70 S.Ct. 317, 94 L.Ed. 335 (1950), Sapir v. United States, 348 U.S. 373, 75 S.Ct. 422, 99 L.Ed. 426 (1955), and Forman v. United States, 361 U.S. 416, 80 S.Ct. 481, 4 L.Ed.2d 412 (1960)); United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. ......
-
U.S. v. Graves
...States v. Marcus, 166 F.2d 497 (3d Cir. 1948) (alibi defense). 24 28 U.S.C. § 2106. See Sapir v. United States, 348 U.S. 373, 374, 75 S.Ct. 422, 99 L.Ed. 426 (1955) (Douglas, J., concurring); United States v. Alvarez, 519 F.2d 1036, 1049 (3d Cir. ...
-
U.S. v. Houltin
...court. See Forman v. United States, 361 U.S. 416, 425-26, 80 S.Ct. 481, 486-87, 4 L.Ed.2d 412 (1960); Sapir v. United States, 348 U.S. 373, 374, 75 S.Ct. 422, 423, 99 L.Ed. 426 (1955); Bryan v. United States, supra, 338 U.S. at 559-60, 70 S.Ct. at 321; United States v. Perez, 5 Cir., 526 F.......
-
Pronouncements of the U.s. Supreme Court Relating to the Criminal Law Field: 1977-1978
...prior cases, such as Forman v. United States, 361 U.S. 416 (1960); Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 289 (1957); Sapir v. United States, 348 U.S. 373 (1955); and Bryan v. United States, 338 U.S. 552 (1950), imply a waiver of the right to a judgment of acquittal by requesting a new trial, the......
-
The Warren Court - After Three Terms
...348 U.S. 142 (1954); Smith v. United States, 348 U.S. 147 (1954); Sullivan v. United States, 348 U.S. 170 (1954); Sapir v. United States, 348 U.S. 373 (1955); and United States v. Bramblett, 348 U.S. 503 (1955). 27 Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11 (1954); Opper v. United States, 348 U.S......