United States v. Rose
Opinion
Per Curiam.
The operative facts herein are substantially identical to those in United States v. Morrison, ante, p. 1. Respondent’s ear was stopped by Border Patrol agents; a search disclosed marihuana. Respondent lost a motion to suppress and was found guilty after a bench trial. Following this trial, but before sentencing, the District Court, relying upon our decision in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266 (1973), granted respondent’s motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, as it did in Morrison, found the Government’s appeal barred by double jeopardy.
In United States v. Wilson, 420 U. S. 332 (1975), we held that double jeopardy would not bar a Government appeal if success on that appeal would result in the reinstatement of a verdict of guilty. The fact that the order of suppression here occurred after a general finding of guilt rendered by the court in a bench trial, rather than after a return of a verdict of guilty by a jury, is immaterial.
Morrison, ante, p. 1. Double jeopardy, therefore, does not bar an appeal by the Government.
We grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand to that court for proceedings consistent herewith.
It is so ordered.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”)
Cited by 38 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court1
- U.S. Courts of Appeals7
- Federal District Courts24
- State Highest Courts4
- State Appellate Courts2
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.