Arizona v. Manypenny

1981-06-15

Headline: Court allows a State to appeal a federal-court judgment of acquittal in a criminal case removed from state court when state law authorizes review, reversing the Ninth Circuit and restoring the state's right to appeal.

Holding: The Court held that when a criminal prosecution is removed to federal court a State may appeal a post-verdict judgment of acquittal under the general federal appeals statute combined with an authorizing state law.

Real World Impact:

Lets states appeal federal-court acquittals in removed criminal prosecutions when state law allows review.
Preserves states’ ability to enforce criminal laws after defendants remove prosecutions.
Leaves unresolved whether double jeopardy bars retrial after such appeals.

Topics: state criminal appeals, federal officer removal, appellate jurisdiction, double jeopardy

Summary

Background

A federal Border Patrol agent was charged in Arizona after firing shotgun shots at a fleeing man on federal land, causing serious injury. The State indicted him for assault, but the agent removed the case to federal court under the federal-officer removal statute. A jury found him guilty, and the district court later set aside the verdict and entered a judgment of acquittal, relying on an immunity defense and a failure to instruct the jury on that defense.

Reasoning

The central question was whether a federal court of appeals could hear the State’s appeal of that acquittal. The Court explained that removal gives a federal forum but does not replace the state criminal law to be applied. It held that the general federal appeals statute (28 U.S.C. §1291), when combined with a State’s own statutory authorization to seek review, supplies federal appellate jurisdiction for a State’s appeal in a removed criminal prosecution. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and held removal did not strip Arizona of its appellate right. The Court expressly declined to decide whether the Double Jeopardy Clause or 18 U.S.C. §3731 bars or authorizes the State’s appeal in these circumstances.

Real world impact

The ruling allows States to seek appellate review in federal court of post-verdict acquittals entered after removal when state law authorizes such review. It preserves a State’s ability to enforce its criminal laws against conduct occurring within the State even if a defendant is a federal officer who obtains removal. Because the Court left double jeopardy and some federal statutory questions open, the final outcome for retrial or further proceedings may still change.