Document: 457 U.S. 31 102 S.Ct. 2211 72 L.Ed.2d 652 Delbert Lee TIBBS, Petitionerv.FLORIDA. No. 81-5114. Argued March 2, 1982. Decided June 7, Syllabus Held : Where the Florida Supreme Court's reversal of petitioner's murder and rape convictions at a jury trial was based on weight evidence, retrial is not barred by Double Jeopardy Clause Fifth Amendment as made applicable to States Due Process Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 39-47. (a) A conviction unlike insufficient evidence where precludes retrial, Burks v. United States, 437 1, 98 2141, 57 1; Greene Massey, 19, 2151, 15, does mean that acquittal only proper verdict. Instead, appellate court sits "thirteenth juror" disagrees with jury's resolution conflicting testimony. Just deadlocked result in an barring under Clause, court's disagreement jurors' weighing require special deference accorded verdicts acquittal. Moreover, can occur after State has presented sufficient support persuaded convict. The simply affords defendant second opportunity seek Giving him this chance amount governmental oppression sort against which intended protect. 39-44. (b) There no merit arguments distinction between sufficiency unworkable will undermine rule encouraging judges base reversals weight, rather than sufficiency, evidence. 44-45. 397 So.2d 1120, affirmed. Louis R. Beller, Miami Beach, Fla., for petitioner. Michael A. Palecki, Tampa, respondent. Justice O'CONNOR delivered opinion Court. 1 We granted certiorari decide whether Clause1 bars state sets aside ground verdict "the evidence." After examining policies supporting we hold permits initiate new prosecution. 2 * In 1974, indicted petitioner Tibbs first-degree Terry Milroy, felony Cynthia Nadeau. Nadeau, State's chief witness, testified she Milroy were hitchhiking from St. Petersburg Marathon, February 3, 1974. man green truck picked them up near Fort Myers and, driving short way, turned off highway into field. He asked help siphon gas some farm machinery, agreed. When Nadeau stepped out few minutes later, discovered driver holding gun Milroy. told he wished have sex ordered her strip. forcing engage sodomy, agreed could leave. As started walk away, however, assailant shot shoulder. fell ground, pleading his life, gunman walked over taunted, "Does it hurt, boy? You pain? Does boy?" Tr. 508. Then, head, killed 3 This deed finished, killer raped Fearing suggested they should leave together "would be old lady." Id., 510. seemed agree returned truck. distance, stopped directly front it. soon feet hit ran opposite direction. fled truck, frightened perhaps approaching car. reached nearby house, occupants let called police. 4 That night, gave police detailed description Several days later patrolman Tibbs, who Ocala, because appearance matched Nadeau's description. Ocala Police Department photographed relayed pictures examined these photos, identified assailant.2 subsequently lineup positively murdered her.3 5 Tibbs' attorney attempted show unreliable witness. She admitted during cross-examination had tried "just about all" types drugs smoked marihuana shortly before crimes occurred. 526, 545-546. also evidenced confusion time day offered ride. Finally, counsel through questions closing argument former boyfriend lying protect boyfriend. flatly denied suggestions.4 6 addition attempts discredit own defense. explained college educated, published story poems, learn more how people live. claimed Daytona across Myers, evening morning 6. did driven any vehicle while Florida. committing charged him. 7 Two Salvation Army officers partially corroborated story. These produced card signed indicating slept Beach Transit Lodge Neither seen 2. other witnesses good reputation law-abiding citizen veracity. 8 On rebuttal, card, similar one introduced showing spent night Orlando Lodge. contradicted claim remained until 6, well sworn statements been once, early part January stayed lodge 1. rebuttal took stand deny both signature his. 9 convicted rape. Pursuant recommendation, judge sentenced death. appeal, Court reversed. State, 337 788 (1976) (Tibbs I ). plurality three justices, acknowledging factual issues criminal peculiarly within province jury," id., 791, six weaknesses case.5 First, except testimony, placing or crimes. Second, although assailant's never found vehicle. Third, neither nor car keys possession. Fourth, cooperated fully when arrested. Fifth, casting doubt veracity.6 hand, attested reputation. several factors undermined believability. Although asserted occurred daylight, events nightfall reliable identification would difficult. furthermore, suggestive photograph session.7 left "considerable [was] committed ha[d] convicted." 790. Therefore, concluded "interests justice" required trial. Ibid.8 10 Boyd concurred specially, noting " '[t]he test applied determining adequacy reasonable men verdict.' 792 (quoting Griffis Hill, 230 143, 145 (Fla.1969)). Apparently applying standard, deficient. weakness might [Tibbs] released incarceration without further litigation," but "reluctantly concur[red]" plurality's decision order understood law permit retrial. So.2d, 792.9 11 remand, dismissed indictment, concluding violate double jeopardy principles articulated (1978), 15 (1978).10 An intermediate disagreed remanded case 370 386 (Fla.App.1979). affirmed latter decision, carefully elaborating difference stemming prompted 1120 (1981) (per curiam ) II explained, rests upon when, even viewing light most favorable prosecution, rational factfinder guilty beyond doubt. draws credibility. "weight evidence" refers "a determination [by] trier fact greater credible supports side issue cause other." 1123.11 12 then classified resting if believed jury, itself "legally law." 1126. deciding upset conviction, stressed those "aspects testimony cast serious believability," 1126, approach bespoke reweighing "Only stretching point . .," II, "could possibly use 'insufficiency' analysis characterize our previous convictions." Ibid.12 13 Having "fairly conclude reversed grounds evidentiary insufficiency," 1127, held do bar Those decisions, believed, DiFrancesco, 449 117, 101 426, 66 328 (1980), interpret preclude set legally conviction. Other reversals, including justice," implicate principles.13 review interpretation Clause. 454 963, 502, 70 378 (1981). 14 1896, ruled successfully appeals judgment "may anew same offence Ball, 163 662, 672, 16 1192, 1195, 41 L.Ed. 300. principle, "imposes limitations whatever power retry succeeded getting first aside," North Carolina Pearce, 395 711, 720, 89 2072, 2078, 23 656 (1969), persevered present. See supra, 131, S.Ct., 434; Scott, 82, 89-92, 2187, 2193-94, 65 (1978). considerations rule. recognized society pay too high price "were every accused immunity punishment defect constitute reversible error proceedings leading conviction." Tateo, 377 463, 466, 84 1587, 1589, 448 (1964). type targeted 91, 2193. generally 434.14 Massey carved narrow exception understanding subject cases, "once reviewing insufficient" Burks, U.S., 18, 2150; Greene, 24, 2154. "means government's so lacking submitted jury." 16, 2149 (emphasis original). survive review, suggested, whenever inferences therefrom prosecution warrant finding doubt." Ibid. 25, sum, noted "confined cases prosecution's failure clear." 17, 2150. So defined, two closely related policies. attaches judgments acquittal.15 guilty, rendered directed judge, absolutely shields retrial.16 insufficiency effect means voted convict defendant. 17 implement principle "[t]he forbids purpose affording another supply failed muster proceeding." 11, 2147. prohibition, core Clause's protections, prevents honing its strategies perfecting successive Repeated prosecutorial sallies unfairly burden create risk sheer perseverance. Green 355 184, 187-188, 78 221, 223, 199 (1957); 130, 433. For reason, produce prove case, prosecutor making attempt 18 just last Term, force concludes Hudson Louisiana, 450 40, 44-45, n. 5, 970, 972-973, 67 30 signifies among jurors themselves. consistently recognized, Clause.17 Similarly, 19 moreover, judgment.18 give "an unacceptably Government, superior resources, [will] wear down [the] defendant" obtain solely persistence. 433.19 20 While ruling thus fails involve usual permitting defendant's successful appeal. freeing whose tainted error, exact persuades panel overturn error-free opportunity, verdict, hardly amounts "governmental protect." 21 Petitioner resists such find unpersuasive reasons. commonly distinguish evidence.20 reason believe today's erode demonstrated ability rationally 22 Jackson Virginia, 443 307, 99 2781, 61 560 (1979), places restraints courts mask grounded persuade guilt words, lower limit definition sufficiency.21 limit, belief faithfully honor their obligations enforce federal laws, us Burks. prevent granting trial.22 III turn, finally, apply above present case. close reading suggests overturned guilt. directing capital "review determine interests justice trial, appeal not." n.8, supra. References justices' doubt" mark conclusions.23 conclusions, stem manner contrary hallmark sufficiency. 24 Any ambiguity I, resolved II. Absent conflict see n.21, construction prior binds Court.24 course, unequivocably "one rare instances weight." 1126 Thus, rested Under circumstances, Accordingly, 25 Affirmed. 26 WHITE, whom BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN join, dissenting. 27 area indicate, meaning always readily apparent. See, e.g., (1978) (overruling Bryan 338 552, 317, 94 335 (1950), Sapir 348 373, 75 422, 426 (1955), Forman 361 416, 80 481, 412 (1960)); Jenkins, 420 358, 95 1006, 43 250 (1975)). begin clear what stake 28 To sustain convince constitutional standard announced matter law, adequate convictions. Were again, must assume once again reverse it.* prevented presenting best incorrect procedural court; rather, full law. If presents additional meet defense: may on, i.e., repeat, already presented. allow bolster reprosecution serve harassment. majority holds circumstances offend provision Constitution. agree. 29 concedes, due process reprosecution. explain why allowed try proof inadequate state-law grounds, federal-law grounds. overcoming insufficiencies seem exactly cases; avoiding each Yet leads different results instances. offers cases. emphasizes "attaches acquittal." But situations posited there initial factfinder. instance, decides that, cannot stand. thinks significance determined basis. basis test, "does verdict." Ante, 42. constraints depend "acquittal remains accordance requirements finally mischaracterization ruling: "The judgment." 43. described above, coming retrial; far developed, "against 32 justify draws, turn Clause," ante, 32, relevant. necessary look articulation not: 33 "Burks [v. (1978)] proceeding.' perseverance." (citations omitted). 34 policy are going relevant question 'due trial' received 'fair offer assemble.' 43, 972, 2149). state-law, federal-law, immaterial considerations. grounds: Only proceed offending deeply ingrained all resources make repeated individual alleged offense." 187, (1957). 35 It having doubts prefer since barred. done recurringly, Jackson, Greene. foreclosed satisfy standard. Hence, avoided; had, sufficient, accompany contemplated. upshot inclined proclaim yet go disagree reversing weight-of-the-evidence Indeed, declared prospect anomaly mistake proclaimed put position. 36 With respect, dissent. "[N]or shall person twice life limb. ." U.S.Const., Amdt. 5. applies Benton Maryland, 784, 2056, 707 (1969). conceded identification, saw photographs Tibbs; pick picture photographic array. officer viewed single suspects four occasions occasions. books identification. pass possible raised procedures, Neil Biggers, 409 188, 93 375, 401 (1972); Simmons 390 377, 88 967, 1247 (1968), challenge remaining included enforcement agents, houseowner acquaintances doctor crimes, performed autopsy doctors confirmed intercourse died bullet wound head. arrived hysterical condition, evening. prisoner, imprisonment rape, State. prisoner met jail awaiting confessed crime defense substantially discredited witness cross-examination, revealing inconsistencies suggesting hope obtaining leniency polygraph examinations, report read indicated "truthful black male pickup Milroy," 302. polygraphs truthful assailant. 303. challenged admissibility 788, 796 (Fla.1976) (Roberts, J., dissenting). justices reach express completely discounted rapist recounted confession. n.3, concluded, appeared "to product purely selfish considerations." summarily 4. "superficial comparison" transit signature, found, supported card. still place 3. 790, n.1. n.2, At Appellate Rule 6.16(b) (1962) provided part: "Upon death substance recodified 9.140(f). points, stated "concur[red] opinion." 792. However, uncertain concurrences Boyd's views differed voting reverse, chosen designate lead "plurality" opinion. Three dissented disposition They record reveal ends awarded," 796-797, rejected assignments error. decided retried. prosecutions final date decision. similarly Lincoln, 630 F.2d 1313 (CA8 1980), example, declared: court, familiar principles. view giving benefit reasonably drawn favor whole circumstantial need exclude hypothesis 1316. "When motion district verdict; weigh doing evaluate credibility witnesses. despite abstract preponderates sufficiently heavily miscarriage occurred, grant submit 1319. C. Wright, Federal Practice Procedure § 553 Elsewhere opinion, longer 1125. diminish importance us. Courts jurisdictions sometimes rely interpreted Rules Criminal Procedure, authorizes "if interest E.g., 1319; Indelicato, 611 376, 387 (CA1 1979); Turner, 490 F.Supp. 583, 593 (ED Mich. 1979), affirmance order, 633 219 (CA6 cert. denied, 912, 1351, 336 (1981); Felice, 481 79, 90-91 (ND Ohio 1978). Chief Sundberg insufficiency, lacked authority reweigh majority's proposing reverses "for substantive lack 1128. England merely discharge "in justice." 1130. accordingly, "should forever discharged accusations him." 1131. appears coincide intent Amendment's drafters. James Madison's proposed version "[n]o subject, impeachment, offence." Annals Cong. 434 (1789). Representatives objected language seeking Representative Sherman, observed "[i]f [defendant] acquitted ought time; first, thing appear aside, entitled second, certainly 753. supporters House approved proposal. Senate substituted appearing S.Jour., 1st Cong., Sess., 71, 77 (1820 ed.). Wilson, 332, 340-342, 1013, 1020-21, 232 (1975); Sigler, History Jeopardy, Am. J. Legal Hist. 283, 304-306 (1963). 129, 433, (1980); 2193, (1978); Arizona Washington, 497, 503, 824, 829, 54 717 Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 564, 571, 97 1349, 1354, 51 642 (1977); Fong Foo 369 141, 82 671, 629 supra; 666-671, 1193-1195, 300 (1896). 509, 832; Sanford, 429 14, 20, 21, 50 ); Johnson 406 356, 401-402, 92 1620, 1652-53, 152 (1972) (MARSHALL, dissenting); Downum 372 734, 735-736, 83 1033, 1033-1034, 100 (1963); Wade Hunter, 684, 689, 69 834, 837, 974 (1949); Keerl Montana, 213 135, 469, 53 734 (1909); Dreyer Illinois, 187 84-86, 28, 32-33, 47 79 (1902); Logan 144 263, 298, 617, 628, (1892); Perez, Wheat. 579, 165 (1824). Our decisions disagreements themselves writing "[t]hat equivalent indicate infidelity reasonable-doubt standard." 362, 1624. dissent necessarily requires introduce Once rules reasons, subsequent believe, endorsing equally Florida, highest "[t]here number trials takes strong juries." Blocker Fla. 878, 893, 110 So. 547, 552 (1926) (en banc). rule, often derives mandate act justice. nn. 12, sharply justice, not. Weinstein, 452 704, 714, (CA2 1971) ("We join forecast doom Government infinite regression. [I]f third [the defendant] suppose hesitate long trial"), sub nom. Grunberger 917, 1766, 116 (1972). sit thirteenth juror, compel repeat role. defendant, inevitably well. advance strategy stronger first. possible, passage experience weaken prosecutor's presentation. eight years elapsed recall diminished significantly, less willing credit almost decade ago. secured everything lose little gain "second chance" receives overreaching prohibited F.2d, 714-716; Shipp, 33, 36-37 (CA4), 396 864, 90 140, 117 (1969); Dorman 622 P.2d 448, 453-454 (Alaska 1981); Ridley 236 Ga. 147, 149, 223 S.E.2d 132 (1976); McGranahan, --- R.I. ---, 415 A.2d 1298, 1301-1303 Tyacke Wis.2d 513, 521, N.W.2d 595, 599 (1974). clearly satisfied Virginia. prosecution." 319, 2789. fact, responsibility fairly resolve conflicts draw basic facts ultimate facts." eyewitness story, presentation process. note precluding prompt legislatures forbid Rulemakers face free peers. Acceptance theory restrictions independent assessment weight. limits contentions logically judge's Cf. (applying postverdict conviction). Endorsement theory, therefore, eliminate practices shield defendants unjust point, refer 'evidence fair impartial mind doubt.' 791 McNeil 104 360, 361-362, 139 (1932)). reference, occurs lengthy quotation earlier context, actually containing speaks "not satisfactory" "substantial character." language, line remainder evidences attached ambiguous Appeals Circuit, consider peculiarities 25-26, 8-10, 2155, 8-10. "direct District certify unresolved Court" problems 27, 2155. Sundberg, concurring dissenting part, below: "Since used, choice identical circumstances." 1130 Because future III, follow affirm "law case" majority, peculiar posture affect consideration jurisdictions, respect

Category: 0