Divans Vs. California

Divans vs California

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Jul-28-1977

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/104128

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/104128
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: Jul-28-1977
Case Number: 434 U.S. 1303
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Divans

Respondent

California

Excerpt

.....in the superior court of santa clara county, cal., pending the filing and disposition of a petition for certiorari here. his first trial aborted as a result of the trial judge's declaration of a mistrial upon applicant's motion. i have determined the application should be denied. any order granting a mistrial at the behest of a defendant in a criminal case is typically based upon error or misconduct on the part of other counsel or the court. in order to elevate such a typical order into one which could form the basis of a claim of double jeopardy, it must be shown not only that there was error, which is the common predicate to all such orders, but that such error was committed by the prosecution or by the court for the purpose of forcing the defendant to move for a mistrial. "the double jeopardy clause does protect a defendant against governmental actions intended to provoke mistrial requests, and thereby to subject defendants to the substantial burdens imposed by multiple prosecutions. it bars retrials where 'bad-faith conduct by judge or prosecutor,' united states v. jorn, [400.u.s.] at 400 u. s. 485 , threatens the" "[h]arassment of an accused by successive prosecutions or declaration of a mistrial so as to afford the page 434 u. s. 1304 prosecution a more favorable opportunity to convict" "the defendant. downum v. united states, 372 u.s. at 372 u. s. 736 ." united states v. dinitz, 424 u. s. 600 , 424 u. s. 611 (1976). the finding of the superior court that the prosecutorial error which resulted in the original mistrial in this case was of the former, and not the latter, kind convinces me that this court would not grant certiorari to review the applicant's double jeopardy claim.

Full Judgment

Divans v. California - 434 U.S. 1303 (1977)
U.S. Supreme Court Divans v. California, 434 U.S. 1303 (1977)

Divans v. California

No. A-91

Decided July 28, 1977

434 U.S. 1303

ON APPLICATION FOR STAY

SYLLABUS

Application for stay of applicant's second state criminal trial pending the filing and disposition of a petition for certiorari in this Court is denied where the first trial resulted in a mistrial upon applicant's motion because of a prosecutorial error found by the trial judge t be of the kind not intentionally committed to provoke a mistrial request.

MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, Circuit Justice.

Applicant has requested that I stay the commencement of his second trial in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, Cal., pending the filing and disposition of a petition for certiorari here. His first trial aborted as a result of the trial judge's declaration of a mistrial upon applicant's motion. I have determined the application should be denied.

Any order granting a mistrial at the behest of a defendant in a criminal case is typically based upon error or misconduct on the part of other counsel or the court. In order to elevate such a typical order into one which could form the basis of a claim of double jeopardy, it must be shown not only that there was error, which is the common predicate to all such orders, but that such error was committed by the prosecution or by the court for the purpose of forcing the defendant to move for a mistrial.

"The Double Jeopardy Clause does protect a defendant against governmental actions intended to provoke mistrial requests, and thereby to subject defendants to the substantial burdens imposed by multiple prosecutions. It bars retrials where 'bad-faith conduct by judge or prosecutor,' United States v. Jorn, [400.U.S.] at 400 U. S. 485 , threatens the"

"[h]arassment of an accused by successive prosecutions or declaration of a mistrial so as to afford the

Page 434 U. S. 1304

prosecution a more favorable opportunity to convict"

"the defendant. Downum v. United States, 372 U.S. at 372 U. S. 736 ."

United States v. Dinitz, 424 U. S. 600 , 424 U. S. 611 (1976). The finding of the Superior Court that the prosecutorial error which resulted in the original mistrial in this case was of the former, and not the latter, kind convinces me that this Court would not grant certiorari to review the applicant's double jeopardy claim.

Same Court & Year US Supreme Court · 1977 Same Parties Divans vs California Same Subject Education