437 U.S. 1 (1978)
Petitioner was convicted of robbing a federally insured bank. The court of appeals reversed his conviction because the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. Rather than terminating the case, the court remanded the action so that a determination could be made whether a directed verdict of acquittal should be entered or a new trial ordered. Petitioner contended that the Double Jeopardy Clause precluded another trial because the appellate court found the evidence legally insufficient, which was the equivalent of a judgment of acquittal.
- The Court reversed the decision to remand the action to the district court and instead remanded the action to the appellate court for judgment of acquittal.
- The prosecution could not be afforded another opportunity to convict petitioner after it had been given an opportunity to offer its evidence.
- It made no difference that the determination of evidentiary insufficiency was made by the appellate court because the double jeopardy considerations were the same.
The Court reversed the decision remanding the case to the district court because the Double Jeopardy Clause precluded another trial once the appellate court found the evidence legally insufficient to support the verdict. The Court remanded the action to the court of appeals to enter a judgment of acquittal.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure