|
|
Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982)
Tibbs v. Florida No. 81-5114 Argued March 2, 1982 Decided June 7, 1982 457 U.S. 31
CERTI0RARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
Syllabus
Held: Where the Florida Supreme Court’s reversal of petitioner’s murder and rape convictions at a jury trial was based on the weight of the evidence, a retrial is not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment as made applicable to the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 39-47.
(a) A reversal of a conviction based on the weight of the evidence, unlike a reversal based on insufficient evidence where the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes a retrial, Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1; Greene . Massey, 437 U.S. 19, does not mean that acquittal was the only proper verdict. Instead, the appellate court sits as a "thirteenth juror" and disagrees with the jury’s resolution of the conflicting testimony. Just as a deadlocked jury does not result in an acquittal barring retrial under the Double Jeopardy Clause, an appellate court’s disagreement with the jurors’ weighing of the evidence does not require the special deference accorded verdicts of acquittal. Moreover, a reversal based on the weight of the evidence can occur only after the State has presented sufficient evidence to support conviction and has persuaded the jury to convict. The reversal simply affords the defendant a second opportunity to seek an acquittal. Giving him this second chance does not amount to governmental oppression of the sort against which the Double Jeopardy Clause was intended to protect. Pp. 39-44.
(b) There is no merit to petitioner’s arguments that a distinction between the weight and sufficiency of the evidence is unworkable, and will undermine the Burks rule by encouraging appellate judges to base reversals on the weight, rather than the sufficiency, of the evidence. Pp. 44-45.
397 So.2d 1120, affirmed.
O’CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and POWELL, REHNQUIST, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined, post, p. 47.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982) in 457 U.S. 31 457 U.S. 32. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=FEFNNH44E6IECM9.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982), in 457 U.S. 31, page 457 U.S. 32. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=FEFNNH44E6IECM9.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982). cited in 1982, 457 U.S. 31, pp.457 U.S. 32. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=FEFNNH44E6IECM9.
|