58 Cited authorities

Montana v. United States
440 U.S. 147 (1979) Cited 3,583 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "once an issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation"
Dowling v. United States
493 U.S. 342 (1990) Cited 2,117 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that admission of evidence must be fundamentally unfair to constitute a due process violation
People v. Romero
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 8640 (N.Y. 2006) Cited 4,924 times
No. 151. Argued October 18, 2006. Decided November 21, 2006. APPEAL, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered October 11, 2005. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), which had convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of two counts of murder in the second degree. People v. Romero, 22 AD3d 287, affirmed. Center
United States v. Powell
469 U.S. 57 (1984) Cited 2,041 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant can be convicted of telephone facilitation despite an acquittal on the predicate felony
Schad v. Arizona
501 U.S. 624 (1991) Cited 1,370 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding constitutional Arizona's scheme of providing general verdicts for first-degree murder based on either premeditation or felony murder, without requiring jury unanimity
Yeager v. United States
557 U.S. 110 (2009) Cited 405 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a jury's failure to reach a verdict on some counts is a "nonevent" that cannot, by negative implication, inform the double jeopardy inquiry
United States v. Felix
503 U.S. 378 (1992) Cited 441 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Government was not foreclosed from prosecuting substantive drug offenses although it had presented evidence of the drug transactions as evidence of another crime
Standefer v. United States
447 U.S. 10 (1980) Cited 560 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an aider and abettor can be convicted of a charge even if the principal is acquitted
People v. Hines
97 N.Y.2d 56 (N.Y. 2001) Cited 710 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that in a post-verdict CPL § 330.30 motion, "an insufficiency argument may not be addressed unless it has been properly reserved for review during the trial"
Dunn v. United States
284 U.S. 390 (1932) Cited 1,492 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a jury's verdicts can stand even if they are inconsistent, and noting that "acquittal on one count may be explained as an exercise of lenity by the jury that is not necessarily grounded in its view of the evidence"

The People of the State of New York, Appellant,v.Donald O'Toole, Respondent.

58 Cited authorities

Holding that "once an issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation"

Holding that admission of evidence must be fundamentally unfair to constitute a due process violation

Holding that a defendant can be convicted of telephone facilitation despite an acquittal on the predicate felony

Holding constitutional Arizona's scheme of providing general verdicts for first-degree murder based on either premeditation or felony murder, without requiring jury unanimity

Holding that a jury's failure to reach a verdict on some counts is a "nonevent" that cannot, by negative implication, inform the double jeopardy inquiry

Holding that the Government was not foreclosed from prosecuting substantive drug offenses although it had presented evidence of the drug transactions as evidence of another crime

Holding that an aider and abettor can be convicted of a charge even if the principal is acquitted

Holding that in a post-verdict CPL § 330.30 motion, "an insufficiency argument may not be addressed unless it has been properly reserved for review during the trial"

Holding that a jury's verdicts can stand even if they are inconsistent, and noting that "acquittal on one count may be explained as an exercise of lenity by the jury that is not necessarily grounded in its view of the evidence"