Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Page United States v. Hodge & Zweig, 548 F. 2d 1347 305,

306, 311, 314 United States v. Howard, 360 F. 2d 373

353 United States v. Hunter, 478 F. 2d 1019

71 United States v. Jackson, 560 F. 2d 112

72 United States v. James, 408 F. Supp. 527

392 United States v. Jeffers, 342 U. S. 48

391 United States v. Jenkins, 420 U. S. 358

63, 84, 86, 87, 90, 91, 94, 95,

97, 100-103, 107-110 United States v. Jones, 533 F. 2d 1387

70 United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S.

470 11, 36, 66, 93, 96, 99, 105 United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375

651 United States v. Keen, 26 F. Cas. 686

91, 92 United States v. Kopp, 429 U. S. 121

100 United States v. Kordel, 397 U. 8. 1

307 United States v. Lasko, 520 F. 2d 622

306, 313, 314 United States v. Langston, 118 U. S. 389

209 United States v. Leon, 534 F. 2d 667

71 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U. 8. 783

111, 115 United States v. MacDonald, 435 U. S. 850

111, 468 United States v. Marion, 404 U. 8. 307

111 United States v. Marrifield, 515 F. 2d 877

71 United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U. S. 564 10,

35, 36, 63, 64, 69, 71, 79, 90, 91, 95–97, 102,

104, 106, 111, 112 United States v. Maurice, 26 F. Cas. 1211

703 United States v. Mayes, 512 F. 2d 637

74

Page United States v. McCarthy, 514 F. 2d 368

305, 314 United States v. McGowan, 302 U. S. 535

648 United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258

690, 691 United States v. Morgan Guar

anty Trust Co., 572 F. 2d
36

305, 312, 316, 320, 321 United States v. Morris, 26 F. Cas. 1323

45 United States v. Morrison, 429 U. S. 1

61, 100 United States v. Morrison, 531 F. 2d 1089

62 United States v. Musquiz, 445 F. 2d 963

24 United States v. National State

Bank, 454 F. 2d 1249 319 United States v. Nelson, 419 F. 2d 1237

16 United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U. S. 159

547 United States v. O'Connor, 118 F. Supp. 248

306, 312 United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139

910 United States v. Pelican, 232 U. 8. 442

649 United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579

33, 44,93 United States v. Powell, 379

U. S. 48 313, 314, 320, 321 United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218

391 United States v. Rose, 429 U. S. 5

100 United States v. Russell, 411 U. S. 423

97 United States v. Ryan, 284 U. S. 167

204 United States v. Sabella, 272 F. 2d 206

72 United States v. Sanges, 144

U. S. 310
United States v. Schaefer, 510
F. 2d 1307

71 United States v. Scott, 437 U. S. 82

32, 51 United States v. Shoemaker, 27 F. Cas. 1067

45 United States v. Sisson, 399

U. S. 267 48, 64, 85, 96, 112

85

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

65, 69

Page

United States Fidelity & Guar-

anty Co. v. United States ex

rel. Struthers Wells Co., 209

U. S. 306

206

United States Glue Co. v. Oak
Creek, 247 U. S. 321

291

United States Steel Corp. v.

Multistate Tax Comm'n, 434

U. S. 452

282

Universal Camera Corp. v.

NLRB, 340 U. S. 474 501, 507

Utah v. United States, 304 F.
2d 23

696
Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U. 8.
30

390, 391
Vaux's Case, 4 Co. Rep. 448 88
Virginia, Ex parte, 100 U. S.
339

702
Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co. v.

Illinois, 118 U. 8. 557 128
Wade v. Hunter, 336 U. S.

684 15, 34, 36, 38, 47, 51, 63, 101

Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall.

418

524-526

Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S.

294

392, 394

Wayne v. United States, 115

U. S. App. D. C. 234 392

Weems v. United States, 217

U. S. 349

685

Weiner v. Shearson, Hammill &
Co., 521 F. 2d 817

659

Weisberg v. Department of

Justice, 106 U. $. App. D. C.

71

228, 246

Wellman Industries v. NLRB,

490 F. 2d 427

226, 233

Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S.

275

288, 624

West v. Kansas Nat. Gas Co.,

221 U. S. 229 532, 533, 627

Western Live Stock v. Bureau
of Revenue, 303 U. S. 250 281,

289
Western Union Telegraph Co.

v. Pennsylvania, 368 U. S. 71 612
West Point Wholesale Grocery

Co. v. Opelika, 354 U. S. 390 288
Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S.
124

541, 554

White v. Dunbar, 119 U. S.

47

590

607,

Page White v. Regester, 412 U. S. 755

541, 550, 555 Whitebread's Case, 7 How. St. T. 311

43 White Motor Co. v. United

States, 372 U. 8. 253 139 Will v. United States, 389

U. S. 90 79, 661, 666, 676 Williams v. Florida, 399 Ú. S. 78

37 Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217 651 Williams v. Mumford, 167

U. S. App. D. C. 125 469, 479 Williams v. Wallace Silver

smiths, Inc., 586 F. 2d 364 479 Winsor v. Queen, 1 Q. B. 390 36 Winton v. Amos, 255 U.S. 373 638 Winton's Estate v. Amos, 51 Ct. Cl. 284

644 Wisconsin River Valley Dist.

Council v. NLRB, 532 F. 2d
47

422, 426, 435

Page Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471

395 Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S. 308

699, 710 Wood v. United States, 16 Pet. 342

190 Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515

640 Worcester County Trust Co. v. Riley, 302 U. S. 292

608, 612, 615, 616 Yaffe v. Powers, 454 F. 2d 1362

479 Yakus v. United States, 321 U, S. 414

213 Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298

8-10 Young, Ex parte, 209 U. S. 123

608, 690, 717 Zahn v. International Paper

Co., 414 U. S. 291 372, 373 Zuber v. Allen, 396 U. S. 168 456

CASES ADJUDGED

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

AT

OCTOBER TERM, 1977

BURKS v. UNITED STATES

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 76-6528. Argued November 28, 1977–Decided June 14, 1978 Petitioner, in support of his insanity defense to a bank robbery charge,

offered expert testimony, and the Government offered expert and lay testimony in rebuttal. Before the case was submitted to the jury, the District Court denied a motion for acquittal. The jury found petitioner guilty as charged, and thereafter his motion for a new trial on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict was denied. The Court of Appeals, holding that the Government had failed to rebut petitioner's proof as to insanity, reversed and remanded to the District Court to determine whether a directed verdict of acquittal should be entered or a new trial ordered, citing, inter alia, as authority for such a remand 28 U. 8. C. $ 2106, which authorizes federal appellate courts to remand a cause and "direct the entry of such appropriate judgment, decree, or order, or require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances." Held: The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment precludes a second trial once the reviewing court has found the evidence insufficient to sustain the jury's verdict of guilty, and the only "just" remedy available for that court under 28 U. 8. C. § 2106 is the entry of a judgment of acquittal. Pp. 5–18.

(a) For the purposes of determining whether the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes a second trial after the reversal of a conviction, a reversal based on insufficiency of evidence is to be distinguished from a reversal for trial error. In holding the evidence insufficient to sustain

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »