Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

ChaffIn Vs. Stynchcombe

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 21, 1973

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, 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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

72 entries 11 linked 61 unlinked
Show
  1. Witherspoon Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · Jun 03, 1968
  2. Spencer Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1967
  3. Giaccio Vs. Pennsylvania US Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1966
  4. United States Vs. Tateo US Supreme Court · Jun 08, 1964
  5. GriffIn Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1956
  6. Douglas Vs. California US Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1963
  7. Rinaldi Vs. Yeager US Supreme Court · May 31, 1966
  8. Shapiro Vs. Thompson US Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1969
  9. Johnson Vs. Avery US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1969
  10. Younger Vs. Gilmore US Supreme Court · Nov 08, 1971
  11. North Carolina Vs. Pearce US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1969
  12. U.S. 17 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court Chaffin v. Stynchcombe
    Search
  13. U.S. 17 (1973) Chaffin v. Stynchcombe
    Search
  14. The rendition of a higher sentence by a jury upon retrial does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, North Carolina v. Pearce
    Search
  15. bars the jury from rendering higher sentences on retrials following reversals of prior convictions. In North Carolina v. Pearce
    Search
  16. Williams v. New
    Search
  17. U. S. 247 (1949), this Court has never expressed doubt about the constitutionality of that practice. See McGautha v. California
    Search
  18. of the Fifth Amendment, made binding on the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Benton v. Maryland
    Search
  19. S. 720 . The foundational precedent from which the Court's view of resentencing discretion derives is Stroud v. United
    Search
  20. Subsequent cases have dispelled any doubt that Pearce was premised on the hazard of vindictiveness. In Moon v. Maryland
    Search
  21. at 398 U. S. 320 . A similar focus on actual vindictiveness is reflected in the decision last Term in Colten v. Kentucky
    Search
  22. likewise represents a view incompatible with petitioner's contention. Petitioner relies instead on United States v. Jackson
    Search
  23. choice in the criminal process that has the effect of discouraging the exercise of constitutional rights. In Brady v. United
    Search
  24. States, 37 U. S. 742 (1970), Parker v. North
    Search
  25. Carolina, 397 U. S. 790 (1970), and North Carolina v. Alford
    Search
  26. Mr. Justice Harlan's opinion for the Court in Crampton v. Ohio
    Search
  27. a companion case to McGautha v. California
    Search
  28. conviction. Affirmed. Mr. JUSTICE DOUGLAS dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Moon v. Maryland
    Search
  29. by juries burdens the defendant's right to choose to be tried by a jury after a successful appeal. United States v. Jackson
    Search
  30. For a detailed description of the unique unsworn statement practice in Georgia, see Ferguson v. Georgia
    Search
  31. Compare the Fifth Circuit opinion in the instant case (455 F.2d 640 (1972)), and Casias v. Beto
    Search
  32. F.2d 54 (CA5 1972), with Levine v. Peyton
    Search
  33. F.2d 525 (CA4 1971), and Pendergrass v. Neil
    Search
  34. to jury resentencing. See cases discussed in Aplin, Sentence Increases on Retrial After North Carolina v. Pearce
    Search
  35. Stroud v. United
    Search
  36. forum, it must assure access to it upon terms and conditions equally applicable and available to all. North Carolina v. Pearce
    Search
  37. U. S. 305 (1966). See also Johnson v. Avery
    Search
  38. the possibility that a harsher sentence will be obtained through prosecutorial malice seems remote. See Williams v. McMann
    Search
  39. not be entirely overcome by requiring that jury trials be bifurcated, as suggested by the Sixth Circuit in Pendergrass v. Neil
    Search
  40. sentence, or by empowering the judge to reduce the second sentence whenever it exceeds the former sentence. See Levine v. Peyton
    Search
  41. Pendergrass v. Neil
    Search
  42. In Brady v. United
    Search
  43. as the Court noted last Term in Santobello v. New
    Search
  44. Id. at 404 U. S. 260 -261. See also Brady v. United
    Search
  45. U.S. at 402 U. S. 211 , similar to that involved in Simmons v. United
    Search
  46. years, in part as a consequence of decisions removing roadblocks and disincentives to appeal. See, e.g., Griffin v. Illinois
    Search
  47. to 1966-1967). MR. JUSTICE STEWART, with whom MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN joins, dissenting. In North Carolina v. Pearce
    Search
  48. U.S. Supreme Court Chaffin v. Stynchcombe
    Search
  49. the Double Jeopardy Clause, North Carolina v. Pearce
    Search
  50. In North Carolina v. Pearce
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial