23 Cited authorities

Arizona v. Washington
434 U.S. 497 (1978) Cited 1,827 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trial judge's failure to make an explicit finding of manifest necessity does not render the declaration of a mistrial constitutionally defective when the basis for that determination is adequately disclosed by the record
Illinois v. Somerville
410 U.S. 458 (1973) Cited 1,134 times
Holding that since "the mistrial met the `manifest necessity" requirement of our cases, . . . the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment . . . did not bar retrial under a valid indictment."
Matter Morgenthau v. Erlbaum
59 N.Y.2d 143 (N.Y. 1983) Cited 232 times
In Erlbaum, the Court of Appeals clearly stated that declaratory relief may not be sought by a criminal defendant for the purpose of “attacking a criminal court's interlocutory ruling” (Erlbaum, 59 N.Y.2d at 151–152, 464 N.Y.S.2d 392, 451 N.E.2d 150).
People v. Ferguson
67 N.Y.2d 383 (N.Y. 1986) Cited 189 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that defense counsel validly waived a double jeopardy claim by assenting to a mistrial when defendant was not consulted or present
People v. Michael
48 N.Y.2d 1 (N.Y. 1979) Cited 213 times
Finding no "manifest necessity" where mistrial declared due to the absence of the defendant's attorney because of a death in the family and the court's belief that the trial had to terminate by the end of the week because the court and several jury members had vacation plans
Matter of Corbin v. Hillery
74 N.Y.2d 279 (N.Y. 1989) Cited 54 times
In Matter of Corbin v Hillery (74 NY2d 279, 289-290 [1989], affd sub nom. Grady v Corbin, 495 US 508 [1990]), the Court of Appeals recognized the Blockburger test but, relying on "pointed dictum" from a later Supreme Court case, determined that double jeopardy applied where the prosecution intended to rely on the acts underlying traffic offenses as part of its proof on, inter alia, a homicide count.
People v. Baptiste
72 N.Y.2d 356 (N.Y. 1988) Cited 42 times
Argued September 14, 1988 Decided October 25, 1988 Appeal from the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Kings County, William Miller, J. Arnold S. Cohen, Caesar Cirigliano and Laura J. Miller for appellant. Elizabeth Holtzman, District Attorney (Sholom J. Twersky and Barbara D. Underwood of counsel), for respondent. SIMONS, J. Defendant appeals from an order of the Appellate Term which affirmed a judgment entered on a guilty plea convicting him
People v. Catten
69 N.Y.2d 547 (N.Y. 1987) Cited 39 times
In Catten the mistrial was granted on the defendant's motion because of misleading discrepancies in the testimony concerning the identification of the defendant by the undercover officer who allegedly purchased drugs from him (id., at 551).
In the Matter of Cohen v. Lotto
19 A.D.3d 485 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005) Cited 13 times
2004-10350. June 13, 2005. In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to bar the retrial of the petitioner in an action entitled People v. Cohen, pending in the District Court, Suffolk County, under docket No. 2002SU-053164, on the ground that retrial would violate his right not to be twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated October 25, 2004, which denied the petition
Smith v. Marrus
33 A.D.3d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006) Cited 11 times
No. 2005-10918. October 10, 2006. Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, to prohibit the respondents from proceeding with the retrial of the petitioner, Danny Smith, who is the defendant in a criminal action entitled People v Smith, pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under indictment No. 4187/04. Before: Schmidt, J.P., Spolzino and Covello, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition is denied, without costs or disbursements, and the proceeding is dismissed on the

In the Matter of Catherine A. Gorman, Appellant,v.Kathleen M. Rice,, Respondent, et al., Respondent.

23 Cited authorities

Holding that a trial judge's failure to make an explicit finding of manifest necessity does not render the declaration of a mistrial constitutionally defective when the basis for that determination is adequately disclosed by the record

Holding that since "the mistrial met the `manifest necessity" requirement of our cases, . . . the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment . . . did not bar retrial under a valid indictment."

In Erlbaum, the Court of Appeals clearly stated that declaratory relief may not be sought by a criminal defendant for the purpose of “attacking a criminal court's interlocutory ruling” (Erlbaum, 59 N.Y.2d at 151–152, 464 N.Y.S.2d 392, 451 N.E.2d 150).

Holding that defense counsel validly waived a double jeopardy claim by assenting to a mistrial when defendant was not consulted or present

Finding no "manifest necessity" where mistrial declared due to the absence of the defendant's attorney because of a death in the family and the court's belief that the trial had to terminate by the end of the week because the court and several jury members had vacation plans

In Catten the mistrial was granted on the defendant's motion because of misleading discrepancies in the testimony concerning the identification of the defendant by the undercover officer who allegedly purchased drugs from him (id., at 551).