stating that "a law fails to meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause if it is so vague and standardless that it leaves ... judges and jurors free to decide, without any legally fixed standards, what is prohibited and what is not in each particular case"
How later courts described this case
- stating that "a law fails to meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause if it is so vague and standardless that it leaves ... judges and jurors free to decide, without any legally fixed standards, what is prohibited and what is not in each particular case"
- finding unconstitutionally vague a Pennsylvania statute requiring an acquitted criminal defendant to pay the costs of his prosecution if the jury determined he was guilty of “some misconduct” less than that necessary for a conviction for the offense charged
- holding that a jury instruction using the term "some misconduct” could not save a wholly standardless statute permitting the assessment of court costs against an acquitted criminal defendant
- holding that a law that let a jury award costs against an acquitted defendant “without imposing a single condition, limitation, or contingency” on the jury was unconstitutionally vague
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by United States v. Johnson, 503 F.2d 339 (1974)
Third, Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, supra, is inapposite on its facts and does not point to the result reached by the majority nor afford it an iota of support.
Distinguished by Commonwealth v. Matthews, 446 Pa. 65 (1971)
Giaccio is inapposite.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Fortas,
concurring.
In my opinion, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not permit a State to impose a penalty or costs upon a defendant whom the jury has found not guilty of any offense with which he has been charged.