Gourt Home::Gourt :: Acquittal
In criminal law, an acquittal is the legal result of a verdict of not guilty, or some similar end of the proceeding that terminates it with prejudice without a verdict of guilty being entered against the accused. The opposite result is a conviction.
In the common law tradition, an acquittal formally certifies the innocence of the accused, as far as the criminal law is concerned. Under the rules of double jeopardy and autrefois acquit, an acquittal operates to bar the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict, or whether it results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused.
Scots law has two acquittal verdicts: not guilty and not proven.
An acquittal, while conclusive as to the criminal law, does not necessarily bar private civil actions in tort or on some other grounds as a result of the facts alleged in the charge. For example, O. J. Simpson could be held civilly liable for wrongful death even after being tried and acquitted of murder. In federal states it also does not bar prosecution for the same offences under a statute at a different level of government. For example, in the United States someone acquitted of a state murder charge can be retried for the same actions on a federal charge of violating civil rights.
With one exception, in the United States an acquittal cannot be appealed by the prosecution because of the prohibition against double jeopardy. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled
- If the judgment is upon an acquittal, the defendant, indeed, will not seek to have it reversed, and the government cannot. U. S. v. Sanges, 144 U.S. 310 (1892). Ball v. U.S., 163 U.S. 662, 671 (1896)
- A verdict of acquittal, although not followed by any judgment, is a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. Ball, supra, at 672.
- *ociety's awareness of the heavy personal strain which a criminal trial represents for the individual defendant is manifested in the willingness to limit the Government to a single criminal proceeding to vindicate its very vital interest in enforcement of criminal laws. United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 479 (1971)
- Whether the trial is to a jury or, as here, to the bench, subjecting the defendant to postacquittal factfinding proceedings going to guilt or innocence violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. Smalis v. Pennsylvania, 476 U.S. 140 (1986)
It was decided in Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141 (1962) that a judgement of acquittal by a jury cannot be appealed by the prosecution. In United States v. Jenkins, 420 U.S. 358 (1975), this was held applicable to bench trials. In Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203 (1984), it was ruled that in a bench trial, when a judge was holding a separate hearing after the jury trial, to decide if the defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment, the judge decided that the circumstances of the case did not permit death to be imposed. On appeal the judge's ruling was found to be erroneous. However, even though the decision to impose life instead of death was based on an erroneous interpretation of the law by the judge, the finding of life imprisonment in the original case constituted an acquittal of the death penalty and thus death could not be imposed upon a subsequent trial. Even though the acquittal of the death penalty was erroneous in that case, the acquittal must stand.
The only exception to an acquittal being final is if the defendant was never in jeopardy at all at trial. If a defendant bribes a judge and obtains acquittal as a result of a bench trial, the acquittal is not valid because the defendant was never in jeopardy in the first place. Harry Aleman v. Judges of the Criminal Division, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, et al., 183 F.3d 302 (1998).
"Acquittal"