Citation network
Arizona Vs. Washington
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 21, 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
-
U.S. 497 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Arizona v. WashingtonSearch
-
U.S. 497 (1978) Arizona v. WashingtonSearch
-
We therefore reverse. II A State may not put a defendant in jeopardy twice for the same offense. Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
See Fong Foo v. UnitedSearch
-
As this Court noted in United States v. DinitzSearch
-
its own law, buttressed by the consistent opinion of the Federal District Court and the Court of Appeals. Cf. Bishop v. WoodSearch
-
consistent course of decision in this Court in cases involving possible juror bias supports this conclusion. Simmons v. UnitedSearch
-
Id. at 142 U. S. 155 . In Thompson v. UnitedSearch
-
comment. In extreme cases, he may discipline counsel, or even remove him from the trial as he did in United States v. DinitzSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
than any reviewing court can possibly be. See Wade v. HunterSearch
-
in declaring a mistrial. Thus, if a trial judge acts irrationally or irresponsibly, cf. United States v. JornSearch
-
Illinois v. SomervilleSearch
-
how desirable such procedural assistance may be, it is not constitutionally mandated in a case such as this. Cf. Cupp v. NaughtenSearch
-
This description of the right, which was quoted by Mr. Justice Harlan in his plurality opinion in United States v. JornSearch
-
U. S. 470 , 400 U. S. 484 , and by the Court in Illinois v. SomervilleSearch
-
U. S. 458 , 410 U. S. 466 , was formulated by Mr. Justice Black in his opinion for the Court in Wade v. HunterSearch
-
As Mr. Justice Black stated in Green v. UnitedSearch
-
In Carsey v. UnitedSearch
-
As the Court stated in Illinois v. SomervilleSearch
-
In his opinion announcing the Court's judgment in United States v. JornSearch
-
Winsor v. TheSearch
-
Downum v. UnitedSearch
-
Wade v. HunterSearch
-
Simmons v. UnitedSearch
-
As the Court noted in Illinois v. SomervilleSearch
-
Winsor v. TheSearch
-
E.g., Whitebread, 7 How. St. Tr. 311 (1679). See also The Queen v. CharlesworthSearch
-
if, for example, the judge discharged the jury because a key witness for the Crown refused to testify, see The Queen v. CharlesworthSearch
-
supra, the accused could nevertheless be retried because jeopardy had not attached under the English rule. Winsor v. TheSearch
-
The Queen v. CharlesworthSearch
-
State v. GarriguesSearch
-
available to give testimony and a mistrial is later granted for that reason, a second prosecution is barred. Downum v. UnitedSearch
-
As Mr. Justice Douglas noted in Downum v. UnitedSearch
-
Downum v. UnitedSearch
-
Logan v. UnitedSearch
-
Moss v. GlennSearch
-
which purports to be the basis for the mistrial ruling, close appellate scrutiny is appropriate. Cf. United States v. GordySearch
-
Of course, we express no opinion regarding whether the failure of the prosecutor to hand over Brady ( Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
Respondent relies on State v. BurruellSearch
-
specific prejudice from the mistrial ruling, other than the harm which always accompanies retrial. Cf. McNeal v. HollowellSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Arizona v. WashingtonSearch
-
of the Federal District Court and the Court of Appeals. Cf. Bishop v. WoodSearch
-
In Thompson v. UnitedSearch
-
See Wade v. HunterSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial