66 Cited authorities

Burks v. United States
437 U.S. 1 (1978) Cited 3,833 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding the trial court is "not to weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses when it judges the merits of a motion for acquittal"
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. Carmony
33 Cal.4th 367 (Cal. 2004) Cited 3,242 times
Holding that the Court of Appeal erred in reversing a trial court's ruling denying a request to strike prior convictions because the appellate court "simply disagreed with the [trial] court's weighing of [the relevant] factors"
Illinois v. Vitale
447 U.S. 410 (1980) Cited 963 times
Holding that a defendant's conviction of a lesser included offense prohibits prosecution on a greater offense, and vice-versa, because the greater and lesser offenses are the "same offense" for double jeopardy purposes
United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co.
430 U.S. 564 (1977) Cited 1,080 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding "appeals by the Government from . . . judgments of acquittal" entered under Rule 29 are authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3731 "unless barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution"
United States v. Wilson
420 U.S. 332 (1975) Cited 911 times
Holding that the underlying premise of double jeopardy was "that a defendant should not be twice tried or punished for the same offense"
Pinkerton v. United States
328 U.S. 640 (1946) Cited 2,732 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding one conspirator may be found guilty of foreseeable substantive offenses committed by his coconspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy
Sanabria v. United States
437 U.S. 54 (1978) Cited 775 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Blockburger test did not apply to violation of a single statute
Hudson v. Louisiana
450 U.S. 40 (1981) Cited 663 times
Holding that, when the record clearly shows that a motion for new trial was granted based on legally insufficient evidence, and not because the trial court acted as a proverbial "13th juror," a retrial is barred by double jeopardy
People v. Thompson
49 Cal.4th 79 (Cal. 2010) Cited 821 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding that juror declarations did not indicate a refusal to deliberate where the declarations failed to "present examples of objective failure to deliberate, such as jurors who turned their backs or otherwise objectively segregated themselves from deliberations"

PEOPLE v. EROSHEVICH

66 Cited authorities

Holding the trial court is "not to weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses when it judges the merits of a motion for acquittal"

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

Holding that the Court of Appeal erred in reversing a trial court's ruling denying a request to strike prior convictions because the appellate court "simply disagreed with the [trial] court's weighing of [the relevant] factors"

Holding that a defendant's conviction of a lesser included offense prohibits prosecution on a greater offense, and vice-versa, because the greater and lesser offenses are the "same offense" for double jeopardy purposes

Holding "appeals by the Government from . . . judgments of acquittal" entered under Rule 29 are authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3731 "unless barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution"

Holding that the underlying premise of double jeopardy was "that a defendant should not be twice tried or punished for the same offense"

Holding one conspirator may be found guilty of foreseeable substantive offenses committed by his coconspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy

Holding that Blockburger test did not apply to violation of a single statute

Holding that, when the record clearly shows that a motion for new trial was granted based on legally insufficient evidence, and not because the trial court acted as a proverbial "13th juror," a retrial is barred by double jeopardy

Finding that juror declarations did not indicate a refusal to deliberate where the declarations failed to "present examples of objective failure to deliberate, such as jurors who turned their backs or otherwise objectively segregated themselves from deliberations"