Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Supreme Court· 3/19/1962

Fong Foo v. United States

Citations

  • 369 U.S. 141
  • 82 S. Ct. 671
  • 7 L. Ed. 2d 629
  • 1962 U.S. LEXIS 1600

About this case

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1962 United States Supreme Court case

English Wikisource has original text related to this article:

**Fong Foo v. United States **

Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141 (1962), was a Supreme Court case in which the court held that acquittals in criminal cases are final even if issued by mistake. While the protection from double jeopardy did not get incorporated to apply to the state governments until 1969 (see _Benton v. Maryland _), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prevented the Federal Government from bringing a defendant to trial twice for the same charge. In this case, the trial judge responded to prosecutorial misconduct by directing the jury to issue a verdict of acquittal rather than declaring a mistrial. Although the Supreme Court implied that this act was probably erroneous, and Justice Clark dissented on this basis, the court enforced the acquittal for the purpose of double jeopardy.[1]

Background of the case

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fong_Foo_v._United_States&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background of the case")
]

The defendants (a corporation and two of its employees) were brought to trial under an indictment for conspiracy and other subsequent charges. The trial was in a Federal District Court that had jurisdiction over them and over the subject matter. The District Judge, after hearing part, but not all, of the government's evidence, ordered the jury to acquit the defendants, which the jury did. The judge's action was based on supposed improper conduct of the United States District Attorney and the supposed lack of credibility of the prosecution's witnesses. The government filed for a writ of mandamus to the Court of Appeals . The Court of Appeals granted the petition and held that the defendants could be retried, based on its opinion that the District Judge did not have the power to direct the judgment of the jury, in this case. The case was then brought before the Supreme Court.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fong_Foo_v._United_States&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Ruling of the Supreme Court")
]

In its opinion, delivered per curiam , the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals on the grounds that its decision violated the Fifth Amendment . The Supreme Court focused on the section of the Amendment that reads "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb". The Court explained that the trial had not terminated before the entry of a judgment, but with a final judgment acquitting the defendants. The Supreme Court recognized the error of the District Judge but ruled that the verdict was final and could not be reviewed without violating rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment of the Constitution.

References

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fong_Foo_v._United_States&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: References")
]

  1. ↑ Ronald J. Allen et al., Criminal Procedure: Adjudication and Right to Counsel 1550-53 (3d ed. 2016).

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fong_Foo_v._United_States&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: External links")
]

show

United States Fifth Amendment criminal procedure case law

hide

Double Jeopardy Clause

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fong_Foo_v._United_States&oldid=1351943839 "

Categories :

Hidden categories:

Search

Search

Fong Foo v. United States

Add languages Add topic

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that although acquittal was based on “egregiously erroneous foundation,” it “could not be reviewed without putting defendant twice in jeopardy”
  • ruling that, if a defendant has been acquitted of an offense, he cannot be retried even if the acquittal was based on an “erroneous foundation”
  • concluding that court’s directed verdict of acquittal could not be reviewed without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause, despite fact that it rested upon an “egregiously erroneous foundation”
  • concluding that court's directed verdict of acquittal could not be reviewed without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause, despite fact that it rested upon an \egregiously erroneous foundation\
  • holding that a trial court’s determination during the course of the defendant’s trial that the defendant should be acquitted on a legally unsupportable ground was entitled to double jeopardy effect
  • holding that a trial court’s determination during the course of the defendant’s trial that the defendant should be acquitted on a legally unsupportable ground was entitled to double jeopardy effect

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Harlan, Clark, Whittaker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

378 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Fong Foo v. United States

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.