163 U.S. 662, 672, 16 S.Ct. 1192, 41 L.Ed. 300 (1896)
At the October term of 1889, the grand jury returned an indictment against Hillard Fillmore Ball, John C. Ball, and Robert E. Boutwell charging them with the murder of William T. Box on June 26, 1889, in Pickens county in the Chickasaw Nation.1 The three defendants pleaded not guilty and were tried together beginning on October 30, 1889.2 On November 3, 1889, the jury returned a verdict finding John C. Ball and Robert E. Boutwell guilty as charged while finding Millard F. Ball not guilty.3 The court ordered the two convicted defendants remanded to custody and discharged Millard F. Ball.4
John C. Ball and Robert E. Boutwell sued out a writ of error from this court.5 This court reversed their judgments because the indictment failed to allege the time or place of Box's death and remanded the case with directions to quash the indictment.6 At the April term of 1891 the original indictment was dismissed, and a new indictment was returned against all three defendants that properly alleged the time and place of death.7
Millard F. Ball filed a plea of former acquittal based on the prior verdict and discharge while John C. Ball and Robert E. Boutwell filed a plea of former jeopardy based on their prior conviction and the dismissal of the first indictment, but the court overruled both pleas.8 The parties stipulated at trial that the two indictments charged the same offense and the same defendants.9 The jury convicted all three defendants of murder and each was sentenced to death before the defendants sued out this writ of error.10
Whether a general verdict of acquittal on a defective indictment for murder bars retrial on a new indictment for the same killing?11
The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. The prohibition is not against being twice punished but against being twice put in jeopardy.12 A general verdict of acquittal upon the issue of not guilty to an indictment undertaking to charge murder, and not objected to before the verdict as insufficient in that respect, is a bar to a second indictment for the same killing.13
Yes. After a trial upon the issue of guilty or not guilty on the first indictment charging the murder of William T. Box, the jury returned a verdict acquitting Millard F. Ball of the whole charge of murder as well as any lesser included offense.14
The Circuit Court possessed jurisdiction over the cause and the party, and it discharged Millard F. Ball by reason of the acquittal by the jury rather than any insufficiency in the indictment, as shown by the fact that the court committed the other defendants found guilty by the same verdict to custody to await sentence and later adjudged them guilty and sentenced them to death upon that indictment.15 The subsequent reversal by this court of the judgments against the other defendants upon the writ of error sued out by them only could not deprive Millard F. Ball's acquittal by the verdict of the jury of its legitimate effect, rendering the verdict conclusive in his favor.16
The acquittal bars retrial of Millard F. Ball on the new indictment for the same killing.17
Whether defendants whose convictions are reversed on their own writ of error may be retried on a new indictment for the same offense?18
A defendant who procures a judgment against him upon an indictment to be set aside may be tried anew upon the same indictment or upon another indictment for the same offence of which he had been convicted.19
Yes. John C. Ball and Robert E. Boutwell sued out a writ of error from the judgments of conviction entered against them on the first indictment.20
This court reversed those judgments and remanded the case with directions to quash the indictment.21 Because the defendants themselves procured the setting aside of the prior proceedings, they stand in the position of having themselves obtained the reversal and may be tried anew on the new indictment for the same offense, so their pleas of former jeopardy were properly overruled.22
The pleas of former jeopardy were properly overruled and the judgments of conviction against John C. Ball and Robert E. Boutwell are affirmed.23