Burks v. United States
437 U.S. 1 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment precludes a second trial for a defendant whose conviction is reversed by an appellate court solely due to insufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict.
Facts:
- David Burks was charged with robbing a federally insured bank using a dangerous weapon.
- At trial, Burks' principal defense was that he was legally insane at the time of the robbery.
- To support his insanity defense, Burks presented three expert witnesses who testified that he suffered from a mental illness rendering him substantially incapable of conforming his conduct to the law.
- The government offered two expert witnesses in rebuttal.
- One government expert testified that Burks had a character disorder but was not mentally ill.
- The other government expert acknowledged a character disorder but gave an ambiguous answer regarding Burks' capacity to conform his conduct to the law.
- The government also presented lay witnesses who opined that Burks appeared sane and capable of normal functioning at the time of the offense.
Procedural Posture:
- Burks was tried in the U.S. District Court.
- At the close of evidence, the trial court denied Burks' motion for a judgment of acquittal.
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
- Burks filed a motion for a new trial, arguing the evidence was insufficient, which the District Court denied.
- Burks, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals found the government's evidence of sanity insufficient to support the verdict and reversed the conviction.
- The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court to determine whether to enter a verdict of acquittal or order a new trial.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the double jeopardy issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prevent a second trial when an appellate court reverses a defendant's conviction because the evidence was legally insufficient to support the verdict?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Burger
Yes, the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes a second trial once a reviewing court has found the evidence legally insufficient to support a conviction. An appellate court's reversal on grounds of evidentiary insufficiency is the functional equivalent of a trial court's judgment of acquittal. The Double Jeopardy Clause forbids affording the prosecution a 'second bite at the apple' to supply evidence which it failed to muster in the first proceeding. The Court distinguished this type of reversal from one based on 'trial error' (e.g., incorrect jury instructions), where a retrial is permissible because the reversal does not constitute a decision that the government failed to prove its case. When an appellate court determines the prosecution's evidence was so lacking that the case should not have even been submitted to the jury, the only just remedy is a judgment of acquittal, and a retrial is barred.
Analysis:
This case established a critical distinction in double jeopardy jurisprudence between reversals for trial error and reversals for evidentiary insufficiency. It clarified that a finding of insufficient evidence by an appellate court has the same finality as a jury acquittal, thus barring retrial. This decision provides a strong protection for defendants against repeated prosecutions when the government fails to meet its burden of proof in the first instance. It overruled prior precedents like Bryan v. United States that had allowed for retrials in such situations, thereby solidifying the principle that the government gets only one fair opportunity to prove its case.
