Jump to content

Fong Foo v. United States/Concurrence Harlan

From Wikisource
Court Documents
Case Syllabus
Opinion of the Court
Concurring Opinion
Harlan
Dissenting Opinion
Clark
 Wikipedia article

United States Supreme Court

369 U.S. 141

Fong Foo  v.  United States

 Argued: Jan. 16, 1962. --- Decided: March 19, 1962


Mr. Justice HARLAN, concurring.

Were I able to find, as Judge Aldrich did, that the District Court's judgment of acquittal was based solely on the Assistant United States Attorney's alleged misconduct, I would think that a retrial of the petitioners would not be prevented by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Even assuming that a trial court may have power, in extreme circumstances, to direct a judgment of acquittal, instead of declaring a mistrial, because of a prosecutor's misconduct-a proposition which I seriously doubt-I do not think that such power existed in the circumstances of this case. But since an examination of the record leaves me unable, as it did the majority of the Court of Appeals, to attribute the action of the District Court to this factor alone, I concur in the judgment of reversal.

Mr. Justice CLARK, dissenting.

Notes

[edit]

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse