Green v. United States
355 U.S. 184 (1957)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial for a greater offense when a defendant is convicted of a lesser included offense, as the jury's silence on the greater charge acts as an implicit acquittal. This protection is not waived when the defendant successfully appeals the conviction for the lesser offense.
Facts:
- Everett Green was accused of maliciously setting fire to a house.
- A woman died as a result of the fire.
- These events led to Green being charged with arson and first-degree murder, as the death occurred during the commission of a felony.
Procedural Posture:
- A District of Columbia grand jury indicted Everett Green for arson (Count 1) and first-degree murder (Count 2).
- At his first trial in a federal district court, the jury was instructed on arson, first-degree murder, and second-degree murder.
- The jury convicted Green of arson and second-degree murder but was silent on the charge of first-degree murder.
- Green appealed his second-degree murder conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (the intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals (appellant: Green; appellee: United States) reversed the conviction, finding the evidence insufficient to support a second-degree murder charge, and remanded for a new trial.
- On remand, Green was retried for first-degree murder.
- The trial court overruled Green's plea of former jeopardy, and the new jury convicted him of first-degree murder, resulting in a death sentence.
- Green appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, sitting en banc, affirmed the conviction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the former jeopardy claim.
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 retrying a defendant for first-degree murder, after a prior jury was silent on that charge but convicted him of the lesser included offense of second-degree murder which he successfully appealed, violate the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Black
Yes. This second trial for first-degree murder placed Green in jeopardy twice for the same offense in violation of the Constitution. Green was in direct peril of being convicted for first-degree murder at his first trial, and the jury refused to convict him on that charge. When the jury was given the choice between first and second-degree murder, its verdict of guilty on the lesser charge served as an implicit acquittal of the greater charge. Green's jeopardy for first-degree murder ended when the first jury was discharged. His successful appeal of the erroneous second-degree murder conviction does not constitute a waiver of this constitutional protection; it is a 'fictional' choice to force a defendant to risk death as the price of correcting a lesser conviction. Conditioning an appeal on the surrender of a valid former jeopardy plea is an unconstitutional forfeiture.
Dissenting - Justice Frankfurter
No. The retrial for first-degree murder does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. By appealing his conviction, the defendant sought to annul the original judgment, which 'opens up the whole controversy' for a new trial as if the first had never occurred. The jury's silence on the first-degree murder charge is not an acquittal; it may have been an irrational compromise verdict resulting from an erroneous jury instruction. The Court's decision improperly overrules the controlling precedent of Trono v. United States, which held that an appeal by the accused waives the right to plead former jeopardy. Adherence to the principle of stare decisis requires affirming the conviction, as the defendant's appeal is what led to the retrial.
Analysis:
This case establishes the crucial doctrine of 'implied acquittal' within double jeopardy jurisprudence. It significantly strengthens a defendant's protections by holding that a jury's silence on a greater charge, when convicting on a lesser one, has the same finality as an express acquittal. The decision rejects the government's 'waiver' and 'continuing jeopardy' theories, ensuring that a defendant does not have to make the 'desperate choice' of forgoing an appeal of an erroneous conviction to avoid facing a more serious charge again. This precedent prevents the state from getting a 'second bite at the apple' on charges a jury has already declined to convict on.
Unlock the full brief for Green v. United States