Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Supreme Court of the United States, 1976

United States v. Rose

United States v. Rose
Supreme Court of the United States · Decided October 12, 1976 · Per Curiam
429 U.S. 5; 97 S. Ct. 26; 50 L. Ed. 2d 5; 1976 U.S. LEXIS 164 (United States Reports)
United States v. Rose

Cases that cite this one

34 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.