United States v. Jenkins

PETITIONER:United States
LOCATION:Interstate Highway 5, approximately 4 miles south of San Clemente

DOCKET NO.: 73-1513
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1972-1975)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

CITATION: 420 US 358 (1975)
ARGUED: Dec 09, 1974
DECIDED: Feb 25, 1975

Mr. Andrew L. Frey – for petitioner
James S. Carroll – for respondent

Facts of the case


Media for United States v. Jenkins

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument – December 09, 1974 in United States v. Jenkins

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement – February 25, 1975 in United States v. Jenkins

Warren E. Burger:

The judgment and opinion of the Court in No. 73-1513, United States against Jenkins will be announced by Mr. Justice Rehnquist.

William H. Rehnquist:

This case is here on writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

It involves a construction of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the constitution.

Respondent Jenkins was indicted for refusing to report for induction.

He waived his right to a jury trial was — had a bench trial and after the trial, a district judge dismissed the indictment and discharged the respondent.

The Court ruled that it would be unfair to convict him since at the time he refused induction it appeared that under a Second Circuit precedent that the induction order was unlawful.

The government appealed this judgment to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit contending that the District Court should have found respondent guilty since the decision of this Court in the meantime had repudiated the Second Circuit precedent.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on the grounds that it was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause and therefore not authorized by the applicable statute.

The applying principles announced today in United States versus Wilson, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

We cannot find in the District Court’s opinion a clear indication that it found against the respondent the facts necessary to convict even under the government’s legal theory of the case.

Unlike Wilson, there is no guilty verdict or finding of guilt which could simply be reinstated in the event an Appellate Court reversed on a legal error.

Since additional proceedings devoted to resolution of factual issues going to the elements of the offense charged would be required upon reversal and remand to subject respondent any further proceedings would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the Second Circuit.

Mr. Justice Douglas with whom Mr. Justice Brennan joins has filed a concurring statement.

Warren E. Burger:

Thank you Mr. Justice Rehnquist.