Ashe v. Swenson
Ashe v. Swenson
Ashe v. Swenson
SWENSON
April 6, 1970 | Stewart, J. | Certiorari to the Court of Appeals Decision | Motion to Quash: Double Jeopardy
PETITIONER: Bob Fred Ashe
RESPONDENT: Harold Swenson, Warden
SUMMARY: Three (or four) men robbed six people while the latter were playing poker inside the house of Gladson (one of the
poker players). Petitioner was charged with robbing Knight; however, the State's evidence that petitioner is one of the robbers was
weak. The jury found petitioner "not guilty due to insufficient evidence." Thereafter petitioner was tried for having robbed another
poker player, Roberts, and was convicted. Petitioner brought the habeas corpus action in the District Court, claiming that the second
prosecution had violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. Both the DC and the CA denied the petition. The SC held that The Fifth
Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy embodies collateral estoppel as a constitutional requirement. Since the jury in the
first trial had determined by its verdict that petitioner was not one of the robbers, the State, under the doctrine of collateral estoppel,
was estopped from relitigating that issue in another trial.
DOCTRINE: Collateral estoppel means that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final
judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit.
FACTS:
1. Three or four men robbed six people while playing
poker in the house of Gladson (one of the players).
The property taken includes money, checks and a car.
2. Ashe was arrested after three other accused were
found and arrested while walking in a highway near
the place where the stolen car was abandoned.
3. Petitioner was separately charged with having robbed
one of the players, Knight. However, the State's
evidence that petitioner had been one of the robbers
was weak. Two of the witnesses testified that there
were only 3 robbers while the other two testified that
there were 4. Also, the petitioner was identified only
by his size, height, actions and the sound of his voice.
4. The trial judge instructed the jury that, if it found that
petitioner participated in the robbery, the theft of any
money from Knight would sustain a conviction, and
that, if petitioner was one of the robbers, he was
guilty even though he had not personally robbed
Knight. The jury found petitioner "not guilty due to
insufficient evidence."
5. Thereafter petitioner, was tried for having robbed
another poker player, Roberts, and was convicted.
Petitioner brought a habeas corpus action in the
District Court, claiming that the second prosecution
had violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth
Amendment.
6. The District Court denied the writ which held that
there was no violation of due process. The Court of
Appeals affirmed.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON the second trial and conviction of the Petitioner for
having robbed another poker player violated his right
against Double Jeopardy? - YES
RULING: The judgment is REVERSED and the case is
REMANDED to the CA for further proceedings.
RATIO:
1. Collateral estoppel means that when an issue of ultimate
fact has once been determined by a valid and final