United States v. Wilson
420 U.S. 332 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not prohibit the government from appealing a trial court's post-verdict ruling in favor of the defendant, provided that a successful appeal would result in the reinstatement of a guilty verdict and not a new trial or further factual proceedings.
Facts:
- In 1966, a check for $1,233.15 was drawn on the funds of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 367, to pay for the wedding reception of the daughter of George J. Wilson, Jr., the union's business manager.
- The check was endorsed by the union's treasurer and president.
- Wilson contended that he never authorized the payment and was unaware that union funds had been used.
- The FBI began an investigation into the matter in April 1968.
- The union treasurer died in 1968, before the FBI investigation was complete.
- The FBI completed its investigation in June 1970, but the government waited another 16 months to seek an indictment.
- During this 16-month delay, the union president, the only other person who could explain the check's circumstances, became terminally ill and unavailable to testify.
Procedural Posture:
- George J. Wilson, Jr. was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for converting union funds.
- Wilson filed a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment for preindictment delay, which the district court denied.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict of guilty.
- After the verdict, Wilson filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, reasserting his claim of prejudice from preindictment delay.
- The District Court granted the post-verdict motion and dismissed the indictment.
- The Government appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals held that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred the government's appeal and dismissed it.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment 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 bar the government from appealing a trial court's post-verdict dismissal of an indictment when a reversal of that dismissal would not require a new trial but would merely reinstate the jury's guilty verdict?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
No. The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the government from appealing a district court's post-verdict ruling dismissing an indictment when a reversal would not require a new trial. The central purpose of the Double Jeopardy Clause is to protect a defendant against the threat of multiple prosecutions for the same offense, not to shield every favorable ruling from appellate review. Where a jury has already returned a verdict of guilty, reversing a judge's subsequent error of law and reinstating that verdict does not subject the defendant to a second trial or compel him to face a new trier of fact. The clause protects against a second prosecution after acquittal or conviction and against multiple punishments, but appellate review that merely corrects a legal error without requiring a new trial does not implicate these core protections.
Dissenting - Justice Douglas
Yes. The Double Jeopardy Clause bars the government's appeal because the trial judge's dismissal was a post-verdict directed acquittal based on facts adduced at trial. The district court's ruling on prejudice from preindictment delay was not a pure question of law; it required a review of the trial evidence to determine the significance of the unavailable witness's potential testimony. This makes the dismissal a legal determination based on facts relating to the general issue of the case, which is functionally an acquittal. As established in prior cases like United States v. Ball and Fong Foo v. United States, a verdict of acquittal, no matter how erroneous, is final and cannot be reviewed without placing the defendant in double jeopardy.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarified the government's right to appeal in criminal cases under the 1970 Criminal Appeals Act. It established that the primary evil the Double Jeopardy Clause protects against is the threat of successive prosecutions, not all forms of appellate review. By drawing a clear line between appeals that would require a new trial (prohibited after an acquittal) and those that would merely reinstate a jury's guilty verdict (permitted), the Court expanded the government's ability to correct trial court errors of law. This ruling ensures that a defendant does not receive a windfall from a judge's legal error made after the jury has already determined guilt, reinforcing the principle of finality for jury verdicts.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Wilson