37 Cited authorities

Gregg v. Georgia
428 U.S. 153 (1976) Cited 6,616 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding that "accurate sentencing information is an indispensable prerequisite to a reasoned determination of whether a defendant shall live or die"
Bordenkircher v. Hayes
434 U.S. 357 (1978) Cited 2,896 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that plea bargaining does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination
Weatherford v. Bursey
429 U.S. 545 (1977) Cited 2,331 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant in a non-capital case has no right to discover lists of prospective government witnesses
Oregon v. Kennedy
456 U.S. 667 (1982) Cited 1,778 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"
United States v. Goodwin
457 U.S. 368 (1982) Cited 1,623 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the presumption of vindictiveness did not apply when the Government brought a felony indictment after the defendant refused to plead guilty to misdemeanor charges and demanded a jury trial
Arizona v. Washington
434 U.S. 497 (1978) Cited 1,823 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. Jorn
400 U.S. 470 (1971) Cited 1,692 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that it was an abuse of discretion for trial judge to declare a mistrial without considering alternatives to the mistrial
Williams v. Florida
399 U.S. 78 (1970) Cited 1,363 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding a conviction by a six-member jury did not violate the Sixth Amendment
Illinois v. Somerville
410 U.S. 458 (1973) Cited 1,132 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."
Crist v. Bretz
437 U.S. 28 (1978) Cited 921 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Due Process Clause protects against prosecutorial abuse

In the Matter of Eric Smith, Respondent,v.Richard A. Brown, Appellant, Kenneth Holder, &c, et al., Respondents.

37 Cited authorities

Holding that "accurate sentencing information is an indispensable prerequisite to a reasoned determination of whether a defendant shall live or die"

Holding that plea bargaining does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination

Holding that a defendant in a non-capital case has no right to discover lists of prospective government witnesses

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 the presumption of vindictiveness did not apply when the Government brought a felony indictment after the defendant refused to plead guilty to misdemeanor charges and demanded a jury trial

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 it was an abuse of discretion for trial judge to declare a mistrial without considering alternatives to the mistrial

Holding a conviction by a six-member jury did not violate the Sixth Amendment

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."

Holding that the Due Process Clause protects against prosecutorial abuse