57 Cited authorities

North Carolina v. Pearce
395 U.S. 711 (1969) Cited 6,845 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that neither the Double Jeopardy Clause nor the Equal Protection Clause imposes an absolute bar to a more severe sentence upon reconviction, thus affirming defendant's higher sentence on being reconvicted, after he had been tried and convicted, appealed, and won a new trial
Oregon v. Kennedy
456 U.S. 667 (1982) Cited 1,780 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that to claim double jeopardy bar defendant must show "government conduct in question [was] intended to `goad' the defendant into moving for a mistrial"
Arizona v. Washington
434 U.S. 497 (1978) Cited 1,825 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
United States v. Scott
437 U.S. 82 (1978) Cited 1,268 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause doesn't prohibit retrial of a defendant after a defendant successfully moves for a mistrial because "[the defendant] was . . . neither acquitted nor convicted, because he himself successfully undertook to persuade the trial court not to submit the issue of guilt or innocence to the jury"
Green v. United States
355 U.S. 184 (1957) Cited 2,266 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that when a jury convicts a defendant on a lesser included charge and remains silent as to the greater inclusive charge, it impliedly acquits the defendant of the greater charge
Illinois v. Somerville
410 U.S. 458 (1973) Cited 1,133 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."
Pell v. Board of Education
34 N.Y.2d 222 (N.Y. 1974) Cited 5,554 times 1 Legal Analyses
Discussing the standard of review in an Article 78 appeal
Crist v. Bretz
437 U.S. 28 (1978) Cited 921 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Due Process Clause protects against prosecutorial abuse
Serfass v. United States
420 U.S. 377 (1975) Cited 966 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that jeopardy had not attached when district court dismissed the indictment because petitioner had not been put to trial
Wade v. Hunter
336 U.S. 684 (1949) Cited 1,167 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not mandate that every time a defendant is put to trial before a competent tribunal, he is entitled to go free if that trial fails to end in a final judgment

In the Matter of Estevan Gentil, Respondent,v.Hon. Ira Margulis,, Respondent, Hon. Richard A. Brown,, Appellant.

57 Cited authorities

Holding that neither the Double Jeopardy Clause nor the Equal Protection Clause imposes an absolute bar to a more severe sentence upon reconviction, thus affirming defendant's higher sentence on being reconvicted, after he had been tried and convicted, appealed, and won a new trial

Holding that to claim double jeopardy bar defendant must show "government conduct in question [was] intended to `goad' the defendant into moving for a mistrial"

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 when a jury convicts a defendant on a lesser included charge and remains silent as to the greater inclusive charge, it impliedly acquits the defendant of the greater charge

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."

Discussing the standard of review in an Article 78 appeal

Holding that the Due Process Clause protects against prosecutorial abuse

Holding that jeopardy had not attached when district court dismissed the indictment because petitioner had not been put to trial

Holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not mandate that every time a defendant is put to trial before a competent tribunal, he is entitled to go free if that trial fails to end in a final judgment