Greene v. Massey
437 U.S. 19 (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 state from retrying a defendant after their conviction has been reversed by an appellate court on the ground that the evidence introduced at the prior trial was legally insufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict.
Facts:
- Nicanor Martinez was shot to death with a pistol.
- A Florida grand jury indicted petitioner Greene and José Manuel Sosa for the murder of Martinez.
- The indictment alleged that Sosa hired, procured, aided, abetted, and counseled Greene to commit the murder.
- The indictment further alleged that Greene carried out the premeditated plan and shot Martinez.
Procedural Posture:
- Greene and Sosa were found guilty of first-degree murder in a Florida state trial court and sentenced to death.
- On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial in a per curiam opinion stating the evidence was 'definitely lacking,' though three majority justices also issued a special concurrence focusing on trial errors.
- Before retrial, the defendants' petition for a writ of prohibition on double jeopardy grounds was denied by Florida appellate courts.
- Upon retrial, Greene and Sosa were again convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Their appeal of the second conviction was denied by a Florida District Court of Appeal on res judicata grounds.
- Greene filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court, which was dismissed.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the habeas petition.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Fifth Circuit's judgment.
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 bar a state from retrying a defendant after an appellate court reverses their conviction on the ground that the evidence at the first trial was insufficient to support the verdict?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
Yes. The Double Jeopardy Clause precludes a second trial once a reviewing court has determined that the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to sustain the verdict. Applying the rule announced in the companion case of Burks v. United States, a reversal for evidentiary insufficiency is the functional equivalent of an acquittal and bars retrial. In this case, the Florida Supreme Court's per curiam opinion explicitly stated the evidence was 'definitely lacking,' which would bar Greene's retrial. However, a special concurrence joined by three of the four majority justices focused only on trial error, which would permit a retrial. Because the basis for the state court's reversal is ambiguous, the case must be remanded to the Court of Appeals to determine the precise ground for the reversal, as that determination is dispositive of the double jeopardy claim.
Concurring - Justice Powell
Yes. While disagreeing that the Double Jeopardy Clause is fully applicable to state proceedings, a fundamental component of the clause is the right not to be retried once an appellate court has found the evidence legally insufficient to support a guilty verdict. This principle, established in Burks v. United States, applies here.
Concurring - Justice Rehnquist
Agrees with the judgment to remand. Does not agree that the Double Jeopardy Clause is fully applicable to the states. Emphasizes that because state procedural rules for challenging the sufficiency of evidence differ from federal rules, the impact of the Double Jeopardy Clause may also differ. For these reasons, he concurs only in the judgment to remand the case.
Analysis:
This case, decided with its companion Burks v. United States, establishes a crucial bright-line rule for double jeopardy jurisprudence. It clarifies that a reversal for insufficient evidence is not merely a procedural victory but is equivalent to an acquittal, barring any subsequent prosecution for the same offense. The decision's practical impact is to force appellate courts to be precise in their reasoning for reversing a conviction; a reversal based on trial error allows for a retrial, while a reversal for evidentiary insufficiency does not. The remand in Greene highlights the challenges federal courts face in applying this rule, as they must often interpret ambiguous state court opinions to determine the true basis for a reversal.
Unlock the full brief for Greene v. Massey