Dowling v. United States
493 U.S. 342 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Double Jeopardy and Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment do not prohibit the government from introducing evidence of a defendant's alleged criminal conduct for which the defendant was previously acquitted, as the prior acquittal does not preclude relitigation of an issue governed by a lower standard of proof in a subsequent trial.
Facts:
- On July 8, 1985, a man wearing a ski mask and armed with a pistol robbed the First Pennsylvania Bank in St. Croix.
- The robber fled in a hijacked taxi van and pulled off his mask while driving away.
- An eyewitness identified the unmasked driver as the petitioner, Reuben Dowling.
- Approximately two weeks after the bank robbery, a woman named Vena Henry alleged that a masked man, whom she identified as Dowling after unmasking him during a struggle, entered her home with another man, Delroy Christian.
- The government's theory was that Dowling committed the bank robbery and that the incident at Henry's home, involving a similar mask and gun, helped establish his identity as the bank robber.
- The government also sought to connect Dowling to Delroy Christian, who was seen in a car outside the bank shortly before the robbery.
Procedural Posture:
- Reuben Dowling was charged in the U.S. District Court for the Virgin Islands for bank robbery.
- His first trial ended with a hung jury.
- A second trial resulted in a conviction, which was subsequently reversed on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- In a separate proceeding in a Virgin Islands court, Dowling was tried and acquitted of charges related to the Vena Henry incident.
- At Dowling's third trial for the bank robbery, the District Court allowed the prosecution to introduce testimony from Vena Henry about the incident for which Dowling had been acquitted.
- The jury convicted Dowling.
- Dowling (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, arguing the admission of Henry's testimony was unconstitutional.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the admission was an evidentiary error but was harmless and not of constitutional dimension.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the constitutional question.
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 introduction of evidence relating to a crime for which a defendant has been previously acquitted violate the Double Jeopardy or Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment when offered in a subsequent criminal trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No, the introduction of evidence from a prior acquittal does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy or Due Process Clauses. The collateral estoppel component of the Double Jeopardy Clause is inapplicable because the prior acquittal did not determine an ultimate issue in the present case. A key distinction lies in the differing standards of proof; an acquittal merely signifies that the government failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas evidence of other acts under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) is admissible if a jury could reasonably conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the act. Because the standard for admissibility is lower than for conviction, the prior acquittal does not preclude the evidence's introduction. Furthermore, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the issue he seeks to foreclose was actually decided in his favor at the first trial, a burden Dowling failed to meet. Finally, the admission of such evidence is not fundamentally unfair and does not violate due process, as evidentiary rules and trial court discretion adequately protect against potential prejudice.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes, the introduction of this testimony violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. An acquittal holds particular significance, and allowing the government to relitigate facts underlying a charge for which a defendant has been acquitted forces the defendant to defend against the same accusation again, undermining the finality of the acquittal and creating a risk of government overreach. The majority's reliance on cases involving civil proceedings is misplaced, as the protections against the state are paramount in successive criminal prosecutions. Forcing a defendant to relitigate facts under a lower standard of proof, combined with the inherently prejudicial nature of extrinsic offense evidence, unacceptably increases the risk of an erroneous conviction. The burden should be on the government to prove an issue was not decided in the defendant's favor, not on the defendant to prove that it was.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the application of the collateral estoppel doctrine within the Double Jeopardy Clause. It establishes that an acquittal is not a finding of factual innocence but rather a failure of the prosecution to meet the high 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard. Consequently, the underlying facts of an acquitted crime can be repurposed as 'other acts' evidence in a subsequent trial where the standard of proof for admissibility is lower (preponderance of the evidence). This ruling provides prosecutors with a powerful tool, allowing them to introduce evidence from unsuccessful prosecutions to bolster new cases, while placing a heavy burden on defendants to prove what specific facts were definitively resolved by a prior general verdict of acquittal.
Unlock the full brief for Dowling v. United States