Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States ex rel. Struthers Wells Co., 209 U. S. 306

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

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

[blocks in formation]

685

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Weisberg v. Department of Justice, 106 U. S. App. D. C.

Wellman Industries v. NLRB, 490 F. 2d 427

228, 246

226,233

[blocks in formation]

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

[blocks in formation]

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

[blocks in formation]

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

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »