Document: 437 U.S. 1 98 S.Ct. 2141 57 L.Ed.2d David Wayne BURKS, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 76-6528. Argued Nov. 28, 1977. Decided June 14, 1978. Syllabus Petitioner, in support of his insanity defense to a bank robbery charge, offered expert testimony, and the Government lay testimony rebuttal. Before case was submitted jury, District Court denied motion for acquittal. The jury found petitioner guilty as charged, thereafter new trial on ground that evidence insufficient verdict denied. Appeals, holding had failed rebut petitioner's proof insanity, reversed remanded determine whether directed acquittal should be entered or ordered, citing, inter alia, authority such remand 28 U.S.C. § 2106, which authorizes federal appellate courts cause "direct entry appropriate judgment, decree, order, require further proceedings may just under circumstances." Held: Double Jeopardy Clause Fifth Amendment precludes second once reviewing court has sustain jury's guilty, only "just" remedy available 2106 is judgment Pp. 5-18. (a) For purposes determining after reversal conviction, based insufficiency distinguished from error. In guilt, an determines prosecution prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Given requirements acquittal, permit would negate purpose forbid afforded another opportunity supply it muster first trial. 15-17. (b) It makes no difference defendant sought one remedies, even sole remedy, he does not waive right by moving Bryan v. United States, 338 552, 70 317, 94 L.Ed. 335; Sapir 348 373; Yates 354 298, 77 1064, 1356; Forman 361 416, 80 481, 4 412, overruled extent they suggest waiver. 17-18. 547 F.2d 968, remanded. Bart C. Durham, III, Nashville, Tenn., petitioner. Frank H. Easterbrook, Washington, D. C., respondent, pro hac vice, special leave Court. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion We granted certiorari resolve question accused subjected when conviction prior solely lack sufficient verdict. 2 * Petitioner Burks tried States crime robbing federally insured use dangerous weapon, violation 18 2113(d) (1976 ed.). Burks' principal insanity. To this claim produced three witnesses who testified, albeit with differing diagnoses mental condition, suffered illness at time robbery, rendered him substantially incapable conforming conduct law. rebuttal two experts, whom testified although possessed character disorder, mentally ill. other witness acknowledged disorder petitioner, but gave rather ambiguous answer been capable Lay also Government, expressing their appeared normal functioning sane alleged offense. 3 charged. Thereafter, filed timely trial, maintaining, among things, "[t]he verdict." Court, concluded challenge sufficiency "utterly without merit."1 On appeal narrowed issues admitting affirmative factual elements charge against him, leaving concerning criminal responsibility resolved. With respect point, Appeals agreed conviction. 968 (CA6 1976). began noting "the government burden proving sanity [beyond doubt] prima facie raised."2 Id., 969. met obligation, indicated, presenting specific experts unchallenged credentials." 970. But went hold fulfilled its since prosecution's viewed light most favorable did "effectively rebu[t]" responsibility. Ibid. particular, presented "express definite opinions precise questions identified critical cases involving issue [in]sanity." 5 At than terminating "for determination ordered." Indicating choose course "from balancing equities," ibid., explicitly adopted procedures utilized Circuit Bass, 490 846, 852-853 (1974), "as guide" used remand: 6 "[W]e reverse district where will entitled unless presents additional carry defendant's sanity. As we noted earlier, make law decided judge. . If court, sitting presence satisfied government's presentation, order Even if evidence, judge refuse finds record fully develop fact so trial." assumed power "balancing" virtue requested cited, 2106,3 335 (1950). F.2d, II 7 cross-petitioned correct meet Accordingly, open review here. posture, are squarely determined jury.4 8 Petitioner's argument straightforward. He contends Appeals' nothing more less decision erred granting By implication, argues, operative equivalent court's either before points out, however, inadequate, said have done, violate Amendment. Therefore, maintains, evidentiary made double jeopardy considerations same, regardless decides order. 9 position advanced embraced our holdings. Indeed, here recognized, supra, appear contrary. convicted evasion income tax laws. moved both close Government's all presented. After returned renewed these motions, asked—in alternative—for These motions were Certiorari then properly ordered affirming decided, first, statutory authority, direct maintained notwithstanding retrial prohibited Clause, contention dismissed paragraph: 10 "Petitioner's stand again place twice persuasive. obtained assigning number errors appeal, including denial '. [W]here successfully seeks there upon trial.' Francis Resweber, 329 459, 462, 67 374, 375, 91 422. See Trono 199 521, 533-534, 26 121, 124, 50 292." U.S., 560, S.Ct., 321, 335. 11 Five years similar 373, 75 422, 99 426 (1955). conspiracy Ap eals, held brief per curiam opinion, explanation, 12 Concurring dismissal indictment, Douglas indicated basis reversal: 13 "The rule stated Kepner 195 100, 130, 24 797, page 805, 49 114, 'It is, then, settled former includes acquitted duly .' acquitted, plainly give go citizen. If, case, guarantee prevent old I see orders evidence." 423. 14 Up Douglas' explication course, precisely urged us presumably applicable well. concurrence undertook distinguish : 15 "If [Sapir] asked different come into play, opens whole disposition might just. 335." 423 (Emphasis added.) Shortly Sapir, 1356 (1957), much same reasoning employed concurrence. Yates, Court—without citing Sapir—ordered acquittals some defendants trials others, main contentions petitioners concerned evidence. explanation stated: 16 "We think do drawing because statute doubt justified refusing deemed palpably insufficient, particularly alternative well 328, 1082. 17 thus paralleled sense allow relief—even language susceptible broader reading, namely, full insufficiency, Three later 412 (1960), treated questions. There due improper instruction i. e., error, opposed insufficiency. Although argued relief error Appeals. Without distinguishing between resulting involve jeopardy: 19 "It elementary person can offense set aside appeal. Ball, 163 662, 672, 1192, 1195, 41 300 (1896). "Even though request portion dealing limitations, still plea must fail. Under particular sought. cases, supra." 425, 486. 20 Until stage seemed adopt expansive implication choice remedies unfair compelled failure turn defendant. decision, entirely free ambiguity. meeting demanded differences those cases. place, dismiss could cured introduction evidence"; Forman, " '[t]he simply instructed.' 426, 487. addition, "Sapir while [Forman] motion. That decisive factor Sapir's case." 21 Court's holdings area, beginning Bryan, hardly characterized models consistency clarity. seemingly stood proposition whatever "appropriate" "equitable," what prompted reversal. A somewhat taken suggested contrary, implied cure inadequacies moved. While completely resolving ambiguities, circumstances. discussing intimated result follow 22 Bryan-Forman line decisions least emerged: requests avenue required again, appealed trial—although during trial—our seem indicate terms ordered. reach departure III 23 unquestionably true "represente[d] resolution, not, charged." Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 564, 571, 97 1349, 1355, 51 642 (1977). deciding forward capacity responsible acts, clearly saying culpability established. instance, entered5 and, c uld retried Fong Foo 369 141, 82 671, 629 (1962); 114 (1904). Consequently, correctly perceived unmistakably meant failing grant otherwise create purely arbitrary distinction others enjoy benefit Sumpter DeGroote, 552 1206, 1211-1212 (CA7 1977). forbids affording proceeding.6 This central objective prohibition successive trials. State repeated attempts convict individual offense," constitutional 'double jeopardy' designed protect being hazards possible offense." Green 355 184, 187, 78 221, 223, (1957); Serfass 420 377, 387-388, 95 1055, 1061-1062, 43 265 (1975); Jorn, 400 470, 479, 547, 554, 27 543 (1971). 25 Nonetheless, discussion Part II, indicates, past consistent believe commands. reexamination precedents, persuades construed accordingly longer followed. Reconsideration begin States. cursory examination limited stating 'where trial,' Louisiana ex rel. 422 (1947), 292 (1905). cited authorities, represent totality analysis, add little, anything, toward problem Bryan. Resweber involved facts unrelated There, admittedly "unusual circumstances," 461, allowed chance out execution sentence death initial attempted electrocution mechanical difficulty. passing, "But U. 300." 375. comment, Ball "if [the defendant's] own cannot avail himself once-in-jeopardy provision bar convicted." 124.7 common ancestor statements Trono, provides logical starting point unraveling conceptual confusion arising followed wake. especially appears instance considered any detail implications North Carolina Pearce, 395 711, 719-720, 89 2072, 2077-2078, 656 (1969). came twice, occasion writ convictions murder. review, fatally defective indictment. flawed indictment proceeded retry They arguing barred jeopardy. rejected statement: 29 "[A] defendant, procures aside, anew offence convicted. Hopt Utah, 104 631, 873; 110 574, 202, 262; 488, 972, 183; 120 430; Regina Drury, Cox Crim.Cas. 544; S.C. Car. & Kirw. 193; Commonwealth Gould, Gray 171." 1195. 30 therefore faulty Moreover, ones errors.8 31 allowing rectifytrial 32 principle Clause] preclude retrying whose leading well-established part jurisprudence." Tateo, 377 463, 465, 84 1587, 1589, 448 (1964) (emphasis supplied). 33 Wilson, 332, 341 n. 9, 1013, 1020, 232 seen arisen generally reversals believe, contributed present state existing area important consider carefully respective roles types analysis. 34 Various rationales policy error,9 view justification 466, 1589: 35 high price indeed society pay every immunity punishment defect constitute reversible conviction." 36 343-344, 11, 1021-1022; Wade Hunter, 336 684, 688-689, 69 834, 836-837, 93 974 (1949). short, effect case. such, implies innocence Rather, through judicial process fundamental respect, e. g., incorrect receipt rejection instructions, prosecutorial misconduct. When occurs, strong interest obtaining fair readjudication maintains val d concern insuring punished. Note, Jeopardy: New Trial Appellate Reversal Insufficient Evidence, U.Chi.L.Rev. 365, 370 (1964). 37 overturned complain prejudice, given offer assemble.10 means lacking beensubmitted jury. Since necessarily afford absolute finality acquittal—no matter how erroneous decision—it difficult conceive greater when, guilty. 38 importance grounds inquiry underscored role quite limited. heard hand, weigh assess credibility judges merits Wolfenbarger, 992, 994 1970); Nelson, 419 1237, 1241 (CA9 1969); McClard 386 495, 497 (CA8 1968); Curley 81 U.S.App.D.C. 389, 392, 160 229, 232-233, cert. denied, 331 837, 1511, 1850 (1947). prevailing long submit inferences therefrom warrant finding Wright, Federal Practice Procedure, 467, pp. 259-260 (1969); Powell 135 254, 257, 418 473 Crawford 126 156, 158, 375 334 (1967). Obviously applies higher standard; rather, substantial uphold decision. Glasser 315 60, 80, 62 457, 469, 86 680 (1942). re-examine standards apparent confined clear.11 negated proverbial "second bite apple." 39 remedy. meaningfully "waives" 191-198, 225-229. 486, authorized "go sought" provide "just today legally direction waives overruled. 40 reversed, opinion. Reversed 42 BLACKMUN took consideration file post-trial Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 29(c). cite Davis 353, 499 (1895), allocation burdens. Title provides: Supreme jurisdiction affirm, modify, vacate, lawfully brought committed excluding which, received, rebutted determines, side's "shall [a] ." 29; p. 245 recognize very conclude, "a held. applicable, sweep absolute. "equities" balanced, declared policy, examination. arose murder Philippines. nonjury murder, lesser included assault. Philippine Islands, increasing sentences affirmed, "it seems majority unable agree conclusion destroyed already acquitted." 228, (1957). expressly "its peculiar setting," interpretation "statutory pertaining Islands." 197, 228; Price Georgia, 398 323, 327-328, 3, 90 1757, 1760, (1970). 430, 614, 708 (1887), last four appeals Territory Utah. errors, instruction, 873 (1882); absence hearsay prejudicial 262 (1884); inadequate 183 (1885). No i sustained appears. Mass. 171 (1858), superseding original challenged. Finally, English Queen 544, 175 Eng.Rep. 516 (Q.B. 1849), assigned. retrial, saying: "A man tried, attainted part, literally inflicted attainder Error; yet certainly indicted offence, apply, never indictment." 546, Eng.Rep., 520. suggested, example, amounts "waiver" protections, 533, 124 (1905); Green, 225-229, somehow continues attached 326, 1759, 300; Breed Jones, 421 519, 534, 1779, 1788, 44 346 (1975). American Tobacco Co. 328 781, 787 4, 66 1125, 1128, 1575 (1946). basic concerns (as here), wary disturbing verdict: "There adduced existence impact accused's condition overwhelming conclude juror entertain complicated nature made—intertwining moral, legal, medical judgments—it unusually showing induce left jury." King 125 U.S.App.D.C., 318, , 372 383, 389 (1967) (footnote omitted).

Category: 0