Illinois v. Vitale

4 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. JOHNSON

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed May 30, 2012

    Here, having originally convicted appellant ofmanslaughter, the state was simply precluded by fundamental principles ofdouble jeopardy (e.g., Blackledge v. Perry (1974) 417 U.S. 21, 30-31[94 S.Ct. 2098, 40 L.Ed.2d 628]) from retrying appellant on the moreserious and greater crime ofmurderfor the same act and incident. (See also J/linois v. Vitale (1980) 447 U.S. 410, 421 [100 S.Ct. 2260, 65 L.Ed.2d 228] [‘‘a person who has been convicted of a crime . . . may not subsequently be tried for a lesser-included offense... . [T]he reverseis also true; a conviction on a lesser-included offense bars subsequenttrial on the greater offense.”].) This Court has repeatedly has distinguished between the admissibility of facts and circumstances ofa prior crime during the penalty phaseoftrial from the 206 relitigation ofthose facts and circumstancesto show a greater or different crime.

  2. PEOPLE v. EROSHEVICH

    Respondent, Khristine Elaine Eroshevich, Answer to Petition for Review

    Filed May 20, 2013

    The federal and state constitutional double jeopardy protections apply to both trials and sentences. (J/linois v. Vitale (1980) 447 U.S. 410, 415; Ludwig v. Massachusetts (1976) 427 U.S. 618, 631.) In thetrial context, the core protection ofthe double jeopardy clauseis the prohibitionofa retrial after an acquittal.

  3. USA v. Edwards

    MEMORANDUM

    Filed September 6, 2011

    Where the government has alleged multiple grounds for liability within a single count (i.e., each alleged contribution), each separate ground must be treated as a separate offense and venue must be established for each one. See, e.g., Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 420-21 (1980) (when multiple bases for committing Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 39 Filed 09/06/11 Page 5 of 12 6 a single offense are charged, each must be evaluated as a stand-alone charge); Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 694 (1980) (same). Venue is determined based "on the nature of the crime alleged and the location of the act or acts constituting it."

  4. USA v. Carpenter

    MOTION to Dismiss on Double Jeopardy as to Daniel E. Carpenter.

    Filed May 31, 2008

    Since all of the elements of aiding and 7 Even if aiding and abetting were considered a lesser-included offense of mail and wire fraud, which it is not, the Double Jeopardy Clause would still bar retrial. See, e.g., Brown, 432 U.S. at 168; Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 419 (1980). 8 Case 1:04-cr-10029-GAO Document 275 Filed 05/31/2008 Page 8 of 13 abetting merge into the elements for mail and wire fraud, the two are the “same offence” under the Blockburger test and, as a result, retrial is barred under the Double Jeopardy Clause. E. Retrial is Barred by Collateral Estoppel.