Posted by Orin Kerr:
Double Jeopardy and Judicial Verdicts:

   It's not everyday that you read a news story on [1]Federal Rule of
   Criminal Procedure 29, but [2]here's one from today's Boston Globe.
   (Hat tip: [3]Howard) Rule 29 allows a trial judge to find a criminal
   defendant not guilty as a matter of law; as long as the judge makes
   clear that she is making the finding based on her view of the
   evidence, she does not need to state a reason and the decision is
   unreviewable by courts of appeal under the Double Jeopardy clause even
   if it is "based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation". [4]Fong Foo
   v. United States, 369 U.S. 141 (1962).
     As the Globe story suggests, Rule 29 is a pretty controversial rule.
   Some prosecutors see the unreviewability of Rule 29 acquittals as an
   invitation for trial judges to get rid of cases that they don't like
   for reasons that have nothing to do with their merits. On the other
   hand, defense attorneys generally see Rule 29 as an important safety
   valve on overzealous prosecutions. It's relatively rare for Rule 29 to
   make the news, though: because acquittals under the Rule can't be
   appealed, its workings tend to fly under the radar screen.
     In December, the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing oral argument in
   a case that addresses one aspect of the Double Jeopardy limits on Rule
   29 and related state rules: if a judge enters a judgment of acquittal
   under Rule 29 or a related state rule, but then soon after changes her
   mind, can she reinstate the charges? Or does the Double Jeopardy
   clause block the judge from reinstating the charges as soon as the
   Rule 29 acquittal is announced? The case is [5]Smith v. Commonwealth,



Volokh mailing list

Reply via email to