Acquittal in Tucson Criminal Appeals Case
Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232, 68 L.Ed 2d 58, 101 St. Ct. 1657
Respondent was indicted in an Arizona state court for the commission of a state crime. Because the charge arose from an act committed while he was on duty as a federal Border Patrol Agent, the case was moved to Federal District Court. After a jury trial, a guilty verdict was returned, but ultimately the District Court sua sponte concluded that respondent had a valid immunity defense and entered a judgment of acquittal. The State appealed, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding, inter alia, that a criminal proceeding removed to federal court arises under federal law, and accordingly is controlled by that law.
The court rejected the suggestion that Arizona's appeal was authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which confers jurisdiction on United States Courts of Appeals over appeals from all final decisions of federal district courts, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.
Arizona statutes, as construed by Arizona courts, authorize the prosecution to seek review when it claims that the trial court has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, as is the claim in this case.
Respondent, by obtaining a federal forum, fully vindicated the federal policies supporting removalâpermitting a trial on the merits of the state-law question free from local interests or prejudice and enabling the defendant to have the validity of his immunity defense adjudicated in a federal forum. No further purpose of the removal statute would be served by denying the State a right to seek review when that very right is available under state law. On the contrary, it would be anomalous to conclude that the State's appellate rights were diminished solely because of the removal.
This Court's prior decisions restricting the availability of § 1291 and its predecessors when the Government seeks to appeal in a criminal case flow from a tradition of requiring that a prosecutorial appeal be affirmatively sanctioned by the same sovereign that sponsors the prosecution. The intention to restrict sovereign power in this area is adequately addressed when the legislature responsible for that power has spoken in express terms, or when a legislative enactment has been authoritatively construed by the sovereign's highest court. Section 1291 neither compels nor forecloses appellate jurisdiction in an appeal taken by a State as prosecutor. Instead, the provision permits a State to appeal if it is authorized to do so by state law. Arizona can rely on § 1291 combined with appellate authorization from the Arizona Legislature. In the circumstances of this case, no more is required.
Daniel Jesse Smith, Tucson, Ariz., for petitioner.
Tucson Criminal Defense Attorney
100 N. Stone Avenue, Suite 801
Tucson AZ 85701 U.S.A. (Pima Co.)
Toll Free: 866-675-8180