Sanabria v. United States
437 U.S. 54 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Double Jeopardy Clause bars a second trial for the same offense after a defendant has been acquitted, even if the acquittal was based on an egregiously erroneous legal ruling. When a single statute defines the 'allowable unit of prosecution' as a single enterprise, such as an illegal gambling business, an acquittal on that charge bars retrial on any theory of liability related to that same enterprise.
Facts:
- Thomas Sanabria and several others were indicted under a federal statute for conducting a single 'illegal gambling business.'
- The indictment alleged the business engaged in both horse betting and numbers betting.
- The indictment specified that the business violated a particular Massachusetts law, Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 271, § 17.
- During the trial, the judge learned that the cited state law, § 17, prohibited betting on horse races but did not prohibit numbers betting, which was covered by a different state law, § 7.
- Based on this interpretation of the indictment and the cited state law, the trial judge struck all evidence related to numbers betting.
- After the numbers betting evidence was excluded, the government lacked sufficient evidence to prove Sanabria's connection to the horse-betting aspect of the operation.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas Sanabria was indicted in the U.S. District Court for participating in an illegal gambling business in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1955.
- During the bench trial, after both sides had rested, the trial judge struck all evidence related to numbers betting due to a perceived defect in the indictment.
- The judge then granted Sanabria's motion for a judgment of acquittal, finding the remaining evidence insufficient to connect him to the horse-betting activities.
- The District Court denied the government's subsequent motion for reconsideration.
- The United States (appellant) appealed the judgment of acquittal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals sided with the government, vacated the acquittal, and remanded the case for a new trial on the numbers betting theory.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari at the request of Sanabria (petitioner) to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
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 bar the government from appealing a defendant's acquittal and retrying him on one theory of liability for a single statutory offense, after the trial court erroneously excluded evidence related to that theory and then acquitted the defendant for insufficient evidence on another theory of liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Marshall
Yes. The Double Jeopardy Clause bars the government's appeal and any subsequent retrial because an acquittal is a final and absolute bar to reprosecution for the same offense, regardless of how erroneous the legal rulings leading to it were. The court reasoned that the trial court's action was a true acquittal on the merits of the single count charged, not merely a dismissal of one portion of the charge. Even if it were characterized as a dismissal of the 'numbers theory,' a retrial would still be for the 'same offense' of which Sanabria was acquitted. The federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1955, defines a single offense: participation in a single 'illegal gambling business.' The various underlying illegal acts (horse betting, numbers betting) are simply different means of committing that single offense, not separate offenses themselves. Citing Braverman v. United States, the Court held that just as a single conspiracy agreement is one offense regardless of its multiple criminal objectives, a single gambling business is one offense regardless of how many state laws it violates. Because Sanabria was acquitted of participating in that single business, he cannot be retried for participation in the same business under a different factual theory.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Stevens
Yes. While agreeing with the majority's Double Jeopardy analysis, this opinion argues that the Court of Appeals lacked statutory jurisdiction to hear the case at all. The Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3731, authorizes government appeals only from orders dismissing an indictment 'as to any one or more counts.' The statute does not authorize an appeal from the dismissal of a mere 'portion' of a count. Therefore, the appeal should have been dismissed on statutory grounds before ever reaching the constitutional Double Jeopardy issue.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Blackmun
No. The dissent would have allowed a retrial, viewing the case as controlled by the precedent in Lee v. United States. The trial court's order, while labeled an 'acquittal,' was functionally a dismissal resulting from the defendant's own mid-trial motion. In the dissent's view, the defendant's maneuvers to exclude evidence should be treated as a waiver of his right to receive a verdict from that particular jury, thus permitting a retrial on the numbers betting theory.
Analysis:
This case strongly reinforces the principle of an acquittal's finality under the Double Jeopardy Clause, confirming that even a factually incorrect or legally erroneous acquittal is an absolute bar to reprosecution. The decision's primary significance lies in its 'unit of prosecution' analysis, which prevents the government from subdividing a single statutory offense into multiple theories of liability to secure a second trial after a failed first attempt. This holding curtails the government's ability to appeal adverse mid-trial evidentiary rulings that lead to an acquittal, thereby protecting defendants from piecemeal prosecution for a single alleged course of criminal conduct.
Unlock the full brief for Sanabria v. United States