Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Scott

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 14, 1978

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

75 entries 12 linked 63 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Perez US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1824
  2. United States Vs. Weller US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1971
  3. United States Vs. Jorn US Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1971
  4. United States Vs. Dinitz US Supreme Court · Mar 08, 1976
  5. United States Vs. Jenkins US Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1975
  6. United States Vs. Sanges US Supreme Court · Apr 04, 1892
  7. United States Vs. Ball US Supreme Court · May 25, 1896
  8. Crist Vs. Bretz US Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1978
  9. United States Vs. Sisson US Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1970
  10. Wade Vs. Hunter US Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1949
  11. Stone Vs. Powell US Supreme Court · Jul 06, 1976
  12. United States Vs. Ceccolini US Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1978
  13. U.S. 82 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Scott
    Search
  14. U.S. 82 (1978) United States v. Scott
    Search
  15. of Appeals, concluding that that Clause barred further prosecution, dismissed the appeal, relying on United States v. Jenkins
    Search
  16. ed.). United States v. Jerkins
    Search
  17. of a judgment of conviction, except on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, Burks v. United
    Search
  18. his part to forgo his valued right to have his guilt or innocence determined by the first trier of fact. United States v. Dinitz
    Search
  19. require further trial court proceedings leading to the factual resolution of the issue of guilt or innocence, see Lee v. United
    Search
  20. United States v. Martin
    Search
  21. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. That court, relying on our opinion in United States v. Jenkins
    Search
  22. no right of Page 437 U. S. 85 appeal in a criminal case, absent explicit statutory authority. United States v. Sanges
    Search
  23. United States v. Wilson
    Search
  24. though our assessment of the history and meaning of the Double Jeopardy Clause in Wilson, Jenkins, and Serfass v. United
    Search
  25. Green v. United
    Search
  26. presented by the challenge of verdicts on appeal. And, in the very first case presenting the issues, United States v. Ball
    Search
  27. convicted, the other acquitted. This Court reversed the convictions, finding the indictment fatally defective, Ball v. United
    Search
  28. the years after Ball, was faced with that question only in unusual circumstances, such as were present in Kepner v. United
    Search
  29. More than 50 years later, in Fong Foo v. United
    Search
  30. Clause. Id. at 369 U. S. 143 . Only last Term, this Court relied upon these precedents in United States v. Martin
    Search
  31. on any ground other than the insufficiency of Page 437 U. S. 91 the evidence to support the verdict, Burks v. United
    Search
  32. is most pithily, if not most elegantly, expressed in the words of Mr. Justice McLean on circuit in United States v. Keen
    Search
  33. Although the primary purpose of the Double Jeopardy Clause was to protect the integrity of a final judgment, see Crist v. Bretz
    Search
  34. that the prosecutor will be permitted to proceed anew notwithstanding the defendant's plea of double jeopardy. See Lee v. United
    Search
  35. Downum v. United
    Search
  36. to offenders. Our very first encounter with this situation came in United Page 437 U. S. 93 States v. Perez
    Search
  37. Id. at 22 U. S. 580 . In our recent decision in Arizona v. Washington
    Search
  38. trial court's discretion must be exercised with a careful regard for the interests first described in United States v. Perez
    Search
  39. Arizona v. Washington
    Search
  40. Court chosen to grant it at that time the Government could have appealed the ruling under our holding in Serfass v. United
    Search
  41. lie at the core of the area protected by the Double Jeopardy Clause. As we have recognized in cases from United States v. Ball
    Search
  42. U. S. 662 (1896), to Sanabria v. United
    Search
  43. Jorn, 400 U.S. at 400 U. S. 478 n. 7 (opinion of Harlan, J.), citing United States v. Sisson
    Search
  44. United States v. Russell
    Search
  45. Page 437 U. S. 101 Wade v. Hunter
    Search
  46. Burnet v. Coronado
    Search
  47. Green, 355 U.S. at 355 U. S. 188 . Accordingly, the contrary holding of United States v. Jenkins
    Search
  48. of the enactment and development of the Act is set out in Mr. Justice Harlan's opinion for the Court in United States v. Sisson
    Search
  49. Lee v. United
    Search
  50. time of the adoption of the Constitution. A contrary ruling would have altered this Court's task in such cases as Lee v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial