United States v. Vanis Ray Robbins, 510 F.2d 301 (6th Cir. 1975). · Go Syfert
United States v. Vanis Ray Robbins, 510 F.2d 301 (6th Cir. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Kleinwaks (nj, 1975-09-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Kleinwaks (2×)
N.J. · 1975 · confidence medium
Wilson was decided under the amended statute. [4] In the omitted footnote, Justice Harlan remarked, "This principle would dictate that after this jurisdictional dismissal, Sisson may not be retried." 399 U.S. at 290, n. 18 , 90 S.Ct. at 2129. [5] The Sisson syllogism holds: (1) the post-verdict ruling was not a common-law arrest of judgment, but an acquittal; (2) under the Ball case, an acquittal cannot be appealed without contravening the Double Jeopardy Clause; and (3) the District Court's ruling in Sisson was shielded from review as a matter of constitutional law. [6] See United States v. J…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Vanis Ray ROBBINS, Defendant-Appellee
74--1363.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Jan 23, 1975.
510 F.2d 301
Eugene E. Siler, U. S. Atty., Lexington, Ky., Leonard A. Sands, Crim. Div., Dept, of Justice, Cleveland, Ohio, David Margolis, Cleveland, Ohio, Peter M. Shannon, Jr., Robert H. Plaxico, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellant., Robert Ent, Cincinnati, Ohio, Barry Wehrman, Covington, Ky., for defendant-appellee.
Peck, Lively, Engel.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellee was indicted for extortion in attempting to collect a gambling debt. A jury was empaneled, and after the government had rested, the appellee made a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. The district judge, after reviewing the government’s evidence, held that the statute involved (18 U.S.C. § 894) does not apply to the collection of illegal gambling debts. Accordingly, he entered a judgment of acquittal.

The government perfected this appeal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731, maintaining that notwithstanding the fact that the judgment below was based upon facts established by evidence received at trial, there was no acquittal on the merits and it would not be double jeopardy to try appellee again. We do not agree. Section 3731 reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

“In a criminal case an appeal by the United States shall lie to a court of[*302] appeals from a decision, judgment, or order of a district court dismissing an indictment or information as to any one or more counts, except that no appeal shall lie where the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution prohibits further prosecution.” (Emphasis supplied.)

In interpreting the above statute, the Supreme Court has held that jeopardy has attached and that an appeal may therefore not be perfected from a determination that rests on evidence adduced at trial, United States v. Sisson, 399 U.S. 267, 90 S.Ct. 2117, 26 L.Ed.2d 608 (1970). Relying on Sisson, this court stated that “[i]f the indictment is dismissed as a result of a stipulated fact or the showing of evidentiary facts outside the indictment, which facts would constitute a defense on the merits at trial, no appeal is available.” United States v. Rothfelder, 474 F.2d 606, 608 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 413 U.S. 922, 93 S.Ct. 3066, 37 L.Ed.2d 1044 (1973). In the instant case the decision of the district judge rested upon evidence introduced by the government at trial, and therefore, no appeal lies from the judgment of acquittal.

The appeal is dismissed.