holding that the trial court’s “dismissal” of charges against the defendant, entered on the basis that “the statutes should not be applied [to the defendant] as a matter of fact,” constituted an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes, even though it was “not clear that the [trial] [c]ourt resolved issues of fact in favor of the respondent,” because the trial court’s statement “may have reflected his conclusion that the Government had failed to establish the requisite criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt” (emphases added)
How later courts described this case
- holding that the trial court’s “dismissal” of charges against the defendant, entered on the basis that “the statutes should not be applied [to the defendant] as a matter of fact,” constituted an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes, even though it was “not clear that the [trial] [c]ourt resolved issues of fact in favor of the respondent,” because the trial court’s statement “may have reflected his conclusion that the Government had failed to establish the requisite criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt” (emphases added)
- holding that the appeal was barred because, on the record there presented, “there was no ... finding [of guilt], in form or substance, to reinstate”
- noting that the concept of "continuing jeopardy” articulated by Justice Holmes in his dissent in Kepner, "has never been adopted by a majority of [the United States Supreme] Court”
- when jury returns “guilty” verdict but trial court enters judgment of acquittal, appeal is permitted because upon conclusion by appellate court that judgment of acquittal was improper, error can be corrected by remand for entry of judgment on the verdict
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled by United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (1978)
Listed in the Constitution Annotated's table of Supreme Court decisions overruled by subsequent decision (entry 168, expressly overruled).
Overruled — as noted by 2 later courts
This is so even if the constitutional authority of People v Brown (supra) was called into question when United States v Jenkins (420 US 358), denying the Government’s right of appeal (and which was so heavily relied upon in Brown), was expressly overruled by
2 citing opinionsQuestioned by People v. Key, 87 Misc. 2d 262 (1976)
den has been called into question by the Supreme Court ruling in Jenkins.
Limited by Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377 (1975)
Jenkins, limited by Serfass,
Distinguished
Distinguished by State v. Souza, 60 Wash. App. 534 (1991)
In addition, Jenkins is clearly distinguishable on its facts.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Douglas,
with whom Mr. Justice Brennan joins,
concurring in the judgment.
I would hold that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars the Government's appeal from the ruling of this trial court in respondent's favor. See Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U. S. 141 . Accordingly, I concur in the affirmance of the judgment below.