Burks v. United States - 437 U.S. 1, 98 S. Ct. 2141 (1978)

Rule:

The Double Jeopardy Clause forbids a second trial for the purpose of affording the prosecution another opportunity to supply evidence which it failed to muster in the first proceeding. This is central to the objective of the prohibition against successive trials. The Clause does not allow the state to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, since the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy was designed to protect an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense.

Facts:

Petitioner Burks was tried in the United States District Court for the crime of robbing a federally insured bank by use of a dangerous weapon, a violation of 18 U. S. C. § 2113 (d) (1976 ed.). Burks' principal defense was insanity. To prove this claim, Burks produced three expert witnesses who testified, albeit with differing diagnoses of his mental condition, that he suffered from a mental illness at the time of the robbery, which rendered him substantially incapable of conforming his conduct to the requirements of the law. In rebuttal the Government offered the testimony of two experts, one of whom testified that although petitioner possessed a character disorder, he was not mentally ill. The other prosecution witness acknowledged a character disorder in Burks, but gave a rather ambiguous answer to the question of whether Burks had been capable of conforming his conduct to the law. Lay witnesses also testified for the Government, expressing their opinion that petitioner appeared to be capable of normal functioning and was sane at the time of the alleged offense. The jury subsequently found the defendant guilty as charged, following which the defendant filed a timely motion for a new trial, maintaining that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. This motion was denied by the District Court, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the conviction--holding that the United States had not fulfilled its burden of proving sanity beyond a reasonable doubt--and, rather than terminating the case against the defendant, remanded to the District Court for a determination of whether a directed verdict of acquittal should be entered or a new trial ordered 

Issue:

May an accused be subjected to a second trial when conviction in a prior trial was reversed by an appellate court solely for lack of sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict?

Answer:

No

Conclusion:

The Court held, overruling Bryan v United States (1950) 338 US 552, 94 L Ed 335, 70 S Ct 317, Yates v United States (1957) 354 US 298, 1 L Ed 2d 1356, 77 S Ct 1064, and Forman v United States (1960) 361 US 416, 4 L Ed 2d 412, 80 S Ct 481, that (1) the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment precluded a second trial when conviction in a prior trial was reversed by the reviewing court solely for lack of sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict, even though the defendant sought a new trial as one of his remedies, or even as the sole remedy, and (2) the only "just" remedy available under 28 USCS 2106 for a federal appellate court in such a case was the direction of a judgment of acquittal.