Greene v. Massey

Background

A man named Greene (joined originally by co-defendant Sosa) was tried in Florida for first-degree murder, convicted, and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court later issued a short per curiam opinion saying the evidence was “definitely lacking” to prove first-degree murder and ordered new trials. Three justices separately filed a special concurrence citing trial errors (noting improperly admitted hearsay) and said they joined the per curiam order. Greene was retried, convicted again, and sought federal habeas relief claiming the second trial violated the constitutional protection against being tried twice for the same offense (the Double Jeopardy Clause).

Reasoning

This Court relied on today’s decision in Burks to hold that the Double Jeopardy protection prevents a second trial when an appellate court has found the trial evidence legally insufficient. Because that protection applies to state criminal cases through earlier precedent, the Court explained that, if the Florida per curiam opinion stood alone, a retrial would be barred. But the special concurrence and later state-court statements left ambiguous whether the reversal rested on insufficiency or on trial error, so the Court could not resolve the double jeopardy claim outright.

Real world impact

The Court reversed and remanded the federal appeals court’s decision and sent the case back for reconsideration in light of Burks. Lower courts must now examine whether a state appellate opinion actually found evidence legally insufficient before allowing a retrial. The ruling raises practical questions about ambiguous appellate opinions and whether retrials for lesser offenses remain possible.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Powell and Rehnquist agreed with the result but questioned the Court’s statement that double jeopardy fully applies to states; Justice Blackmun did not participate.