15 Cited authorities

  1. Ohio v. Johnson

    467 U.S. 493 (1984)   Cited 1,150 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding double jeopardy did not bar prosecution of more serious crimes when defendant pleaded to less serious crimes
  2. Richardson v. United States

    468 U.S. 317 (1984)   Cited 684 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the failure of the jury to reach a verdict is not an event which terminates jeopardy" and that "[r]egardless of the sufficiency of the evidence at petitioner's first trial, he has no valid double jeopardy claim to prevent his retrial"
  3. State v. Russo

    25 Cal.4th 1124 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 1,064 times
    Holding a "jury need not agree on a / / / specific overt act as long as it unanimously finds beyond a reasonable doubt that some conspirator committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy"
  4. People v. Birks

    19 Cal.4th 108 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 954 times
    Holding that criminal defendant has no unilateral entitlement to instructions on lesser offenses which are not necessarily included in the charge
  5. Downum v. United States

    372 U.S. 734 (1963)   Cited 733 times
    Holding that such gambling precludes the demonstration of manifest necessity necessary for a mistrial
  6. Wade v. Hunter

    336 U.S. 684 (1949)   Cited 1,144 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
  7. People v. Guiuan

    18 Cal.4th 558 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 677 times
    Approving this instruction
  8. Fong Foo v. United States

    369 U.S. 141 (1962)   Cited 384 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an acquittal prevents a second prosecution even if it is based upon an "egregious error" of fact or law
  9. People v. Toro

    47 Cal.3d 966 (Cal. 1989)   Cited 227 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Toro, we held that consent to instructions on an uncharged lesser related offense could be inferred from defense counsel's failure to object, and that such failure to object 'bar[s] a contention based on lack of notice.' [Citations.
  10. Kellett v. Superior Court

    63 Cal.2d 822 (Cal. 1966)   Cited 313 times
    In Kellett, the California Supreme Court held that under § 654, the failure to unite all offenses in the same act or course of conduct "will result in a bar to subsequent prosecution of any offense omitted if the initial proceedings culminate in either acquittal or conviction and sentence."
  11. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 315 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer