Supreme Court of the United States
Carlisle v. United States
April 29, 1996517 U.S. 416
Summary
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, held that the District Court lacked authority to grant a postverdict motion for judgment of acquittal filed one day after Rule 29(c)'s deadline and affirmed the Sixth Circuit. Neither the criminal rules, inherent supervisory authority, the All Writs Act, nor the asserted due process right authorized the acquittal. Justice Souter concurred, emphasizing that inherent judicial authority generally remains subject to legislative abrogation. Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justices Souter and Breyer, concurred to distinguish time prescriptions from subject matter jurisdiction, emphasize that Carlisle had not been misled by the trial court, and identify remaining avenues for relief. Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Kennedy, dissented, arguing that Rule 29 did not withdraw a district court's inherent authority to acquit sua sponte while it retained jurisdiction over the case.
Holding
- Authority under Rules 29 and 45 to enter a postverdict acquittal without a timely motion.. A district court cannot grant a postverdict motion for judgment of acquittal filed outside Rule 29(c)'s seven-day period unless an extension was fixed within that period, and cannot evade that requirement by acting sua sponte after a guilty verdict.
- Authority under Rules 2 and 57 to disregard the deadline.. Neither Rule 2 nor Rule 57 authorizes granting the untimely acquittal motion.
- Inherent supervisory authority to enter the acquittal.. Federal courts' inherent supervisory power does not authorize procedural action that circumvents or conflicts with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
- Availability of coram nobis under the All Writs Act.. Coram nobis and the All Writs Act did not authorize the District Court's acquittal.
- Due process challenge to enforcement of the deadline.. Carlisle failed to establish that denying authority to grant his untimely postverdict acquittal motion violated the Fifth Amendment.
Docket 94-9247
Cited authorities
- 21 U.S.C. § 846
- 21 U.S.C. § 84
- Rule 29(c)
- Rule 29(c)
- Rule 29(c)
- Rule 29(c)
- Rule 29(a)
- Rule 29(a)
Cited by
- (HC) Obando-Segura v. People of California
- Tooks v. Sheriff of County of Kimble, Texas
- United States v. Travalino
- United States v. Travalino
- United States v. Pierce
- Michael A. Brennan, Petitioner, Appellant v. Ashbel T. Wall, Respondent, Appellee
- Frank Igwebuike Enwonwu, Petitioner, Appellant v. United States of America, Respondent, Appellee
- United States v. Trenkler