Downum v. United States

8 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS (JACK EMMIT)

    Appellant’s Reply Brief

    Filed November 16, 2009

    (Cf. Crist v. Bretz (1978) 437 U.S. 28, 35- 36 [98 S.Ct. 2156, 2160-2161, 57 L.Ed.2d 24]; Downum v. United States (1963) 372 U.S. 734, 736 [83 S.Ct. 1033, 1034, 10 L.Ed.2d 100].) Indeed, the right to a trial by jury in criminal cases is such a fundamentalfeature of the justice system that it is protected against state action by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

  2. PEOPLE v. GOOLSBY

    Respondent’s Reply to Answer to Petition for Review

    Filed March 24, 2014

    Such authority must be exercised with great discretion so that retrial does not violate the guarantee against being twice placed in jeopardy. (See, e.g., Downum v. United States (1963) 372 USS. 734, 737-738 [83 S.Ct. 1033, 10 L.Ed.2d 100] [Retrial improper followingfirst trial where jury dischargedat prosecution’s request because oneofits key witnesses was absent and had not been found and the prosecutor allowed the jury to be selected and sworn under these circumstances]; Fong Foo v. United States (1962) 369 U.S. 141, 143 [82 S.Ct. 671, 7 L.Ed.2d 629] [Although criticized as being based upon an “egregiously erroneous foundation,” directed verdict of acquittal wasfinal andretrial barred by double jeopardy].) In the present case, there was no reasonforthetrial court to contemplate exercising its discretion to discontinuethe trial.

  3. Saddler v. Conant

    MOTION re Supplement

    Filed February 5, 2015

    In Downum, for example, the Court held that the retrial of the defendant on multiple charges of passing fraudulent checks, which involved approximately 100 witnesses, was barred by double jeopardy, where the prosecution obtained a mistrial based on the unavailability of a single witness whom the prosecution had failed to locate prior to the first trial. 372 U.S 734, 736, (1963). 117 Jorn, 400 U.S. at 479.

  4. PEOPLE v. GOOLSBY

    Appellant’s Answer to Petition for Review

    Filed March 14, 2014

    In Downum,discharge of the jury because the prosecution had been unable to proceed and had not sought a continuancebarredretrial. (Downum v. United States, supra, 372 U.S. at pp. 737-738.) In Sullivan, the trial court had refused to accept a verdict on a robbery charge because the jury had declared itself hopelessly deadlocked on a great bodily injury enhancement.

  5. PEOPLE v. GOOLSBY

    Respondent’s Reply Brief on the Merits

    Filed December 30, 2014

    retrial of charges properly before the jury in the original PFOSCCULION oo... ee cee steeteeseeeeneeeeeeaeeaceesneesaeenaeense The lesser offense of arson of property was before the jury without objection by the defense; any claim the jury was improperly discharged whenit failed to declare a verdict as to this offense is forfeited, and the issue of appellant’s guilt should be resolved byretrial.... eveeees 4 sevseene 8 sesees 10 sevees 18 seeeee 19 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page C. The principles of double jeopardy do not preventretrial of a lesser related offense mistakenly identified as a lesser included offense in the jury instructions and for which the jury did not return a verdict as instructed............ 23 CoOnclUSiON ...........-0esceeseeseceecccccccceesececccecuccvscecccacstuscesceuseseccuceseseccerancecaeaeeees 30 il TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Arizona v. Washington (1978) 434 U.S. 497 [98 S.Ct. 824, 54 L.Ed.2d 717]...25 Downumv. United States (1963) 372 U.S. 734 [83 S.Ct. 1033, 10 L.Ed.2d 100]...ee28 In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal.4th 924occccccesssseseeneesetetsessenecssecseecsteesceseeaeeesnsaenteres 14 Inre Winship (1970) 397 U.S. 358 [90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368]...eee 7 Kellett v. Superior Court (1966) 63 Cal.2d 822.00...seeeseueseseseuecaceaesesaeaesensessaeaceceeeseaeneaees 2, 18, 19 Lafler v. Cooper (2012) US. [132 S.Ct. 1376, 182 L.Ed.2d 398]....... 14, 16, 17 Lopez v. Smith (2014) US. [135 S.Ct. Leeceneeeeseeeseneeeeesenenees 12, 13 Martinezv. Illinois (2014) —~U.S.__ [134 S.Ct. 2070, 188 L.Ed.2d 1112]oe28 Ohio v. Johnson (1984) 467 U.S. 493 [104 S.Ct. 2536, 81 L.Ed.2d 425]... 24 Orlina v. Superior Court (1999) 73 CalApp.

  6. PEOPLE v. GOOLSBY

    Respondent’s Opening Brief on the Merits

    Filed July 29, 2014

    ection 1164 that the trial court improperly discharged the jury without a verdict on the lesser offense ...........cceeeeee 40 D. Theprinciples of double jeopardy do not preventretrial of a lesser related offense mistakenly identified as a lesser included offense in the jury instructions and for which the jury did not return a verdictas instructed............45 CONCIUSION ceccceccceccccccececcccecececceneccecccccersecceuuncesucuceceseeeessuseceseeaaerssaeaenecconsenss 52 il TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Arizona v. Washington (1978) 434 U.S. 497 [98 S.Ct. 824, 54 L.Ed.2d 717]cece46 Brownv. Boren | (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1303ccccsessenseeeesesenssenersnsecterseeeeneneneey 15 Burks v. United States _ (1978) 437 U.S. 1 [98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1]oes51 Cole v. Arkansas . (1948) 333 U.S. 196 [68 S.Ct. 514, 92 L.Ed. 644]0eee21 Curry v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 707 ooecccecsesceccsescscesesessseesesseneseneneenseseresseeseseneneensarens 50 Downum v. United States (1963) 372 U.S. 734 [83 S.Ct. 1033, 10 L.Ed.2d 100)...eee 51 Fontana v. Upp (1954) 128 CalApp.2d 205 ociccccssecsesteseseersneneersnseeeeerenereseereaeensnsens 15 Higgins v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 37... eccsseceseesseseeneneeeasesseceeceneeeenseasansaencens 50 In re Colford (1924) 68 Cal.App. 308 oo. ccsesccescsneseeesiesessenetensenseeeneeeaseneneenenen 50 Kellett v. Superior Court (1966) 63 Cal.2d 822oiecece cess eeeseenereenenensereneenenes 1 et passim Martinezv. Illinois (May 27, 2014) __U.S.__ [134 S.Ct. 2070, L-Ed.2d Jaeessesssee 51 Ohio v. Johnson (1984) 467 U.S. 493 [104 S.Ct. 2536, 81 L.Ed.2d 425]... 45,51 Orlina v. Superior Court (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 258 oicceesseeseseseseecenenenenenssenennensaes 6, 35 lil People v. Anderson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 92 ooccccceneseseer re rsesnesenscssessssenecseeseseneeneneenenenes 46 People v. Anzalone (2013) 56 Cal.4th 545iceseeee sete esseisssseseseesssseneessenerecess 42, 48 People v. Ardoin (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 102oonrcesessseesescnesenenerenens

  7. PEOPLE v. MONTES (JOSEPH MANUEL)

    Appellant’s Reply Brief

    Filed April 19, 2011

    This is so because everycriminal defendant is entitled to a verdict by the jury originally empaneled. (Cf Crist v. Bretz (1978) 437 U.S. 28, 35-36; Downum v. United States (1963) 372 U.S. 734, 736.) The right to trial by jury in criminal cases is such a fundamental feature of our justice system that it is protected against state action by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

  8. PEOPLE v. GOOLSBY

    Appellant’s Answer Brief on the Merits

    Filed November 18, 2014

    A NEW PROSECUTION WOULD ALSOSUBJECT APPELLANT TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY. 19 A. Introduction 19 B. Respondent’s misleading and Incomplete Assessment ofDefense Counsel’s Strategy and the Prosecutor’s Actions. 20 C. The Only Appropriate Appellate Remedyin this Case Involving a Single Conviction Reversed for WantofSubstantial Evidence is Dismissal. 23 D. The Merits: A New Prosecution is Barred by Penal Code Section 654 andKellett. 24 E. Hadthe Trial Court Not Erred by Denying Appellant’s Motion for Acquittal, the Charge of Arson to Property-ofAnother Never Would Have AppearedintheCase, andit Wouldbe Undisputed that Refiling was Barred by Kellett. 32 F. Penal Code Section 1164 Has Nothing to Do With This Case. 34 G. Becausethe JuryWas DischargedWithout Reaching a Verdict on Arson to Property of Another a NewTrial is Also Barred by Double Jeopardy. 36 ‘CONCLUSION 50 CERTIFICATION Ul TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Downum v. United States (1963) 372 U.S. 734 ....cccsccsscssscsseeseessesseseespassim Evans v. Michigan (2013) 133 S.Ct. 1069.......cccecssccessescesscssssesssseseasesees40 Fong Foo v. UnitedStates (1962)369 U.S. T4Loeecsssccsestecsesseseeseeesees40 Higgins v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1960) 185 Cal. App. 2d 37 occccsscsccescsersesessssssecsecsscsssssseeesesesesseasees 44, 45 In re Colford (1924) 68 Cal. App. 308 .......cccccscsscssccseesesssessesseseees 41, 42, 45 In re Hess (1955) 45 Cab.20 171 woeccccccccsccscssscessccsscssscsscscsssesscesccssssseeens 18 Kellett v. Superior Court(1966)63 Cal. 2d822.....ccccsccccsscsscseseeeeeeepassim Lafler v. Cooper (2012)132S.Ct. 1376 wc ccscesesseseescessessessesssesesssscssesses 18 Martinez v. Illinois (2014)134 S.Ct. 2070... ceccccssesseeseeesseesessssscsecespassim Orlina v. Superior Court (1999)73 Cal. App. 4" 258..........0.0. 29, 30, 31, 32 People v. Adams (1990)220 Cal. App. 3d 680.......ccccccescccesseeessecesssseses23 Peoplev. Birks (1998) 19 Cal. 4108 ...cc.