United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States ex rel. Struthers Wells Co., 209 U. S. 306 United States Glue Co. v. Oak Page 206 291 282 696 390, 391 88 702 128 Multistate Tax Comm'n, 434 U. S. 452 Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U. S. 474 501, 507 Utah v. United States, 304 F. 2d 23 Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U. S. 30 Vaux's Case, 4 Co. Rep. 44a Virginia, Ex parte, 100 U. S. 339 Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co. v. Illinois, 118 U. S. 557 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 Wayne v. United States, 115 U. S. App. D. C. 234 Weems v. United States, 217 U. S. 349 392, 394 392 685 Weisberg v. Department of Justice, 106 U. S. App. D. C. Wellman Industries v. NLRB, 490 F. 2d 427 228, 246 226,233 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, 289 288 Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pennsylvania, 368 U. S. 71 612 West Point Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Opelika, 354 U. S. 390 Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S. 124 541, 554 White v. Dunbar, 119 U. S. 47 590 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. S. 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. S. 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 1 |