Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19820316_0041054.C03.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-08 04:15:19
Document Index: 543355100

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 922', '§ 924', '§ 3731', '§ 1291', '§ 1291', '§ 3731', '§ 3731', '§ 39']

| Government of Virgin Islands v. Christensen
Government of Virgin Islands v. Christensen
GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS APPELLANTv.CHRISTENSEN, ARTHUR APPELLEE
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX; CHRISTIANSTED JURISDICTION (D.C. Crim. No. 80-00072)
Author: Hunter; Sloviter
1. Appellee Arthur Christensen was charged with murder in the second degree, in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 922(b)(1957).*fn1 Following his trial in the District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands, the jury found appellee guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter (14 V.I.C. § 924(1) (1957)).*fn2
633 F.2d at 669. 12. Treating the Government of the Virgin Islands as a prosecutorial arm of the federal government is consistent with the Supreme Court's recent decision in Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232, 101 S. Ct. 1657, 68 L. Ed. 2d 58 (1981). In Manypenny, the defendant was prosecuted by the state of Arizona; the case was removed to federal court because the defendant asserted a federal immunity defense. The state sought to appeal the judgment of acquittal entered by the district court, asserting 18 U.S.C. § 3731 as authorization. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding that the statute's authorization of appeals by the United States did not apply to a state. Arizona v. Manypenny, 608 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1979). The court of appeals also rejected the suggestion that the general appeals statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1976), provided authorization for Arizona's appeal. 608 F.2d at 1199 n.3.
Manypenny, 451 U.S. at 249, 101 S. Ct. at 1668. Thus, the Court held, § 1291 permits a state's appeal in federal court if the appeal is also authorized by state law.*fn3
14. Appellee urges us to confine our inquiry to the Virgin Islands Code in seeking authorization for this appeal. This position ignores the import of Wheeler and Dowling-that the United States is the relevant sovereign in this case. Thus, the rule of Manypenny-that a state may appeal in federal court when a state statute would permit its appeal in state court-does not apply here. The prosecutorial authority here is a creation of the federal government; it acts on behalf of the United States. Therefore, a statute authorizing appeal by the United States authorizes appeal by the Government of the Virgin Islands.*fn4
16. The legislative history of § 3731 indicates that it was intended to authorize appeal by the government in a criminal case to the extent permissible under the Constitution, specifically, under the double jeopardy clause. United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 131, 101 S. Ct. 426, 434, 66 L. Ed. 2d 328 (1980); United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 568, 97 S. Ct. 1349, 1352, 51 L. Ed. 2d 642 (1977); United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 337, 95 S. Ct. 1013, 1019, 43 L. Ed. 2d 232 (1975). In this context, the Supreme Court has recognized the special status of a final judgment of acquittal: it is a judgment to which the law attaches particular significance. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. at 129, 101 S. Ct. at 433. Nevertheless, the Court has held that so long as the double jeopardy clause is not violated, an acquittal may be appealed. United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 91, 98 S. Ct. 2187, 2194, 57 L. Ed. 2d 65 (1978); Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 95 S. Ct. 1013, 43 L. Ed. 2d 232 (1975).*fn5
An acquittal is accorded special weight. "The constitutional protection against double jeopardy unequivocally prohibits a second trial following an acquittal," for the "public interest in the finality of criminal judgments is so strong that an acquitted defendant may not be retried even though "the acquittal was based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation.' (Citation omitted.) If the innocence of the accused has been confirmed by a final judgment, the Constitution conclusively presumes that a second trial would be unfair."
It is the law of this circuit that we have statutory authority (under § 3731) to hear government appeals from judgments of acquittal. Unless the double jeopardy clause prevents this appeal, we have jurisdiction.
641 F.2d at 1108, quoting Schoenhut, 576 F.2d at 1018 n.7.*fn6 Therefore, a judgment of acquittal which follows a jury's guilty verdict may be reversed without requiring retrial, and, hence, without violating the double jeopardy clause.*fn7 Reinstatement of a guilty verdict, unlike retrial, does not place the criminal defendant twice in jeopardy; thus, the judgment of acquittal in this case is appealable.
19. In reviewing the district court's post-verdict judgment of acquittal, we must determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the government, supports the jury's verdict. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S. Ct. 457, 469, 86 L. Ed. 680 (1942); United States v. Dixon, 658 F.2d 181, 188 (3d Cir. 1981). During the post-verdict hearing on the motion for a judgment of acquittal, the court criticized the government for offering evidence with the promise of later providing a foundation, when no proper foundation was forthcoming. Appendix at 219-248.*fn8 The court also criticized the government for apparent misconduct in the preparation of evidence by the police and the prosecution. A government witness, Detective Petersen, had testified that a photograph displaying damaging physical evidence had been taken on the day of the alleged killing. Detective Petersen maintained this position under vigorous cross-examination. After the jury's guilty verdict was rendered, the prosecution submitted a letter to the court in which Petersen admitted that his testimony had been a "mistake:"
... I think that the most the court should do at this particular juncture is based upon (Detective) Petersen's admission now that he was mistaken, at least grant a new trial but not to overturn the verdict.
Appendix at 240-41.*fn9
By analogy, the democratically elected legislature of the Virgin Islands has expressly dealt with the authority of its government to appeal in criminal actions in 4 V.I.C. § 39(c).*fn1a That statute provides:
The United States or the Government of the Virgin Islands may appeal an order dismissing an information or otherwise terminating a prosecution in favor of a defendant or defendants as to one or more counts thereof, except where there is an acquittal on the merits.*fn2a