Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

illinois Vs. Somerville

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 27, 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

67 entries 5 linked 62 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Perez US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1824
  2. Wade Vs. Hunter US Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1949
  3. Dreyer Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1902
  4. United States Vs. Jorn US Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1971
    Relied / Followed
  5. United States Vs. Ball US Supreme Court · May 25, 1896
  6. U.S. 458 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court Illinois v. Somerville
    Search
  7. U.S. 458 (1973) Illinois v. Somerville
    Search
  8. the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Benton v. Maryland
    Search
  9. Fourteenth Amendments. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas corpus prior to our decision in United States v. Jorn
    Search
  10. s petition for certiorari was granted, and the case remanded for reconsideration in light of Jorn and Downum v. United
    Search
  11. for habeas corpus should have been granted because, although he had not been tried and acquitted as in United States v. Ball
    Search
  12. U. S. 662 (1896), and Benton v. Maryland
    Search
  13. Double Jeopardy Clause in the context of a declaration of a mistrial over a defendant's objection is United States v. Perez
    Search
  14. reserved to the trial judge in such circumstances has been consistently reiterated in decisions of this Court. In Wade v. Hunter
    Search
  15. Id. at 336 U. S. 691 . Similarly, in Gori v. United
    Search
  16. supra, at 336 U. S. 689 , has not been disregarded by this Court. In United States v. Perez
    Search
  17. supra, and Logan v. United
    Search
  18. of juries unable to reach verdicts, and, therefore, the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar retrial. Cf. Keerl v. Montana
    Search
  19. U. S. 71 (1902). In Simmons v. United
    Search
  20. Id. at 142 U. S. 154 . In Thompson v. United
    Search
  21. jurors was disqualified, he having been a member of the grand jury that indicted the defendant. Similarly, in Lovato v. New
    Search
  22. While virtually all of the cases turn on the particular facts, and thus escape meaningful categorization, see Gori v. United
    Search
  23. policy enunciated in United States v. Perez
    Search
  24. automatically be stripped of that success by an appellate court. This was substantially the situation in both Thompson v. United
    Search
  25. States, supra, and Lovato v. New
    Search
  26. that would lend itself to prosecutorial manipulation would involve an entirely different question, cf. Downum v. United
    Search
  27. States, supra, such was not the situation in the above cases or in the instant case. In Downum v. United
    Search
  28. the declaration of a mistrial. In United States v. Jorn
    Search
  29. into account, there was a manifest necessity for the sua sponte declaration of this mistrial. United States v. Perez
    Search
  30. that the Double Jeopardy Clause precluded the second trial in the instant case. The first is that, since United States v. Ball
    Search
  31. obtained even though the indictment upon which the defendant was first acquitted had been defective, and since Downum v. United
    Search
  32. that resulted in respondent's conviction. Alternatively, respondent argues that our decision in United States v. Jorn
    Search
  33. supra, at 400 U. S. 484 , quoting Wade v. Hunter
    Search
  34. not applicable to the instant case, because it overlooks a crucial element of the Court's reasoning in United States v. Ball
    Search
  35. was fatally deficient in failing to allege that the victim died within a year and a day of the assault. Ball v. United
    Search
  36. the trial judge's declaration of a mistrial was not an abuse of discretion. Since this Court's decision in Benton v. Maryland
    Search
  37. an individual State followed by a retrial under a proper indictment. Duncan v. Tennessee
    Search
  38. The Court's opinion in Jorn is replete with approving references to Wade v. Hunter
    Search
  39. of the defendant in having his fate determined by the jury first impaneled is itself a weighty one. United States v. Jorn
    Search
  40. in proceeding to verdict is outweighed by the competing and equally legitimate demand for public justice. Wade v. Hunter
    Search
  41. of the Double Jeopardy Clause, jeopardy attaches when a criminal trial commences before judge or jury, United States v. Jorn
    Search
  42. Green v. United
    Search
  43. and this point has arrived when a jury has been selected and sworn, even though no evidence has been taken. Downum v. United
    Search
  44. jeopardy at his first trial despite the fact that the indictment against him was defective under Illinois law. Benton v. Maryland
    Search
  45. addressed itself to the general problem of mistrials and the Double Jeopardy Clause, most recently in United States v. Jorn
    Search
  46. abjured mechanical, per se rules and have preferred to rely upon the approach first announced in United States v. Perez
    Search
  47. Id. at 22 U. S. 580 . See also United States v. Jorn
    Search
  48. U.S. Supreme Court Illinois v. Somerville
    Search
  49. the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Benton v. Maryland
    Search
  50. of Jorn and Downum v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial