Citation network
Tibbs Vs. Florida
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 07, 1982
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. 31 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Tibbs v. FloridaSearch
-
U.S. 31 (1982) Tibbs v. FloridaSearch
-
evidence, unlike a reversal based on insufficient evidence where the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes a retrial, Burks v. UnitedSearch
-
to the jury's recommendation, the judge sentenced Tibbs to death. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court reversed. Tibbs v. StateSearch
-
Id. at 792 (quoting Griffis v. HillSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
dismissed the indictment, concluding that retrial would violate the double jeopardy principles articulated in Burks v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 437 U. S. 1 (1978), and Greene v. MasseySearch
-
that Greene and Burks do not bar retrial. Those decisions, the court believed, as well as United States v. DiFrancescoSearch
-
Page 457 U. S. 40 United States v. BallSearch
-
U. S. 711 , 395 U. S. 720 (1969), has persevered to the present. See United States v. DiFrancescoSearch
-
United States v. ScottSearch
-
of a conviction is not the type of governmental oppression targeted by the Double Jeopardy Clause. United States v. ScottSearch
-
supra, at 437 U. S. 91 . See generally United States v. DiFrancescoSearch
-
Burks v. UnitedSearch
-
States and Greene v. MasseySearch
-
defendant and create a risk of conviction through sheer governmental perseverance. Page 457 U. S. 42 See Green v. UnitedSearch
-
of conflicting evidence and concludes that a guilty verdict is against the weight of the evidence. See Hudson v. LouisianaSearch
-
and obtain conviction solely through its persistence. United State v. DiFrancescoSearch
-
legally insufficient evidence from evidence that rationally supports a verdict. Second, our decision in Jackson v. VirginiaSearch
-
S.Const., Amdt. 5. The Clause applies to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
not pass upon any possible due process questions raised by the State's identification procedures, see generally Neil v. BiggersSearch
-
Simmons v. UnitedSearch
-
assailant. Id. at 303. Tibbs challenged the admissibility of these polygraphs during his first appeal. See Tibbs v. StateSearch
-
retried. We have applied Burks to prosecutions that were not yet final on the date of that decision. See Hudson v. LouisianaSearch
-
similarly have explained the difference between evidentiary weight and evidentiary sufficiency. In United States v. LincolnSearch
-
to permit the trial judge to set aside a conviction that is against the weight of the evidence. E.g., United States v. LincolnSearch
-
United States v. IndelicatoSearch
-
United States v. FeliceSearch
-
appearing in the present Clause. S. Jour., 1st Cong., 1st Sess., 71, 77 (1820 ed.). See generally United States v. WilsonSearch
-
See United States v. DiFrancescoSearch
-
Arizona v. WashingtonSearch
-
United States v. MartinSearch
-
Fong Foo v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. MartinSearch
-
Arizona v. WashingtonSearch
-
Johnson v. LouisianaSearch
-
Downum v. UnitedSearch
-
Logan v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Tibbs v. FloridaSearch
-
Tibbs v. StateSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial