 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
Hudson v Louisiana
[1981]
Author:- Sam Biers
Former Jeopardy
Relevant Facts: Defendant/Petitioner Terry Hudson was alleged to have been engaged in an altercation and the victim died as a result. Originally there were no witnesses an no weapon had been found. At the second trial an eyewitness was presented by the prosecution.
Legal Issue(s): Whether Louisiana violated the Double Jeopardy Clause by prosecuting Hudson a second time after the first trial judge granted df’s motion for new trial on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict of guilt?
Court’s Holding: Yes
Procedure: Df as tried in state court before a jury for first degree murder and they found him guilty. He moved for a new trial claiming insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding. Granted. The second jury found him guilty. LSCt. Affirmed. Pet, sought habeus corpus relief, the trial ct denied that writ; LSCt affirmed. Reversed by U.S.S.Ct.
Law or Rule(s): “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb”; Where the State received a fair opportunity to offer whatever proof it could assemble bars retrial on the same charge after an initial finding of insufficient evidence to support guilty verdict.
Court Rationale: Due to the failure of proof at trial, where the state had received a fair opportunity to present its evidence, but that the trial ct determined that evidence insufficient, it makes no difference that the reviewing court, rather than the trial ct determines the evidence insufficient, the State is barred from retrying the petitioner. The judge decided that after reviewing the evidence put to the jurors there was no evidence, certainly no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, to sustain a verdict of guilt. There was no weapon produced, no proof of anyone who saw a blow struck. The trial judge granted the new trial b/c the State had failed to prove its case as a matter of law, not merely b/c he was a acting as a 13th juror.
Plaintiff’s Argument: The Double Jeopardy Clause bars the State from trying df a second time after the first trial lacked sufficient evidence to support the guilty verdict.
Defendant’s Argument: The trial judge granted the new trial only because he entertained personal doubts about the verdict and was acting as the 13th juror.
Burks does not preclude a new trial in such a case b/c a new trial was not granted due to failure of proof.