Citation network
Morris Vs. Mathews
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 26, 1986
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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 237 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. MathewsSearch
-
U.S. 237 (1986) Morris v. MathewsSearch
-
the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Ohio Court of Appeals, Fifth Judicial District, affirmed his conviction, State v. MathewsSearch
-
CA No. 2578 (Licking County, Aug. 9, 1979), and the Ohio Supreme Court declined to grant discretionary review. State v. MathewsSearch
-
vacated the Court of Appeals' judgment, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Illinois v. VitaleSearch
-
U. S. 410 (1980). Mathews v. OhioSearch
-
s conviction for aggravated murder. State v. MathewsSearch
-
denied respondent's motion to appeal, and this Court denied his subsequent petition for certiorari review. Mathews v. OhioSearch
-
of the Ohio Court of Appeals, Page 475 U. S. 244 the District Court denied respondent's petition. Mathews v. MarshallSearch
-
WD Ohio, Apr.19, 1983). A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Mathews v. MarshallSearch
-
Id. at 162, quoting Graham v. SmithSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
respondent had established a sufficient possibility of prejudice to warrant a new trial on the murder charge. Mathews v. MarshallSearch
-
a new trial must be granted whether or not there is a showing of prejudice. Respondent relies heavily on Price v. GeorgiaSearch
-
of that charge and, a fortiori, of the lesser offense of murder as well. Page 475 U. S. 246 Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Cf. Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
an individual from suffering the embarrassment, anxiety, and expense of another trial for the same offense, Green v. UnitedSearch
-
in a separate trial for murder, but it did not expressly say so, nor did it refer to any Ohio authorities. Mathews v. MarshallSearch
-
State v. MooreheadSearch
-
trial. The Court correctly points out that this position cannot be reconciled with the terms of the judgment in Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
him, for example, for any mental anguish inflicted upon him by the prosecution for the aggravated offense. See Price v. GeorgiaSearch
-
by the violation. Mathews v. MarshallSearch
-
F.2d 158, 162 (CA6 1985), quoting Graham v. SmithSearch
-
may be deemed harmless with respect to respondent's conviction for the lesser included offense. In Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
United States v. HastingSearch
-
standard originated in Fahy v. ConnecticutSearch
-
ultimately result in convictions on lesser included charges that are not barred. See United States ex rel. Hetenyi v. WilkinsSearch
-
F.2d 844 (1965), cert. denied sub nom. Mancusi v. HetenyiSearch
-
Id. at 864. This Court relied on Hetenyi in Price v. GeorgiaSearch
-
formulation, the Court refers to Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
United States v. BagleySearch
-
Chapman, 386 U.S. at 386 U. S. 24 . If it were, the remand in Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in this case, each of the other two courts has followed Hetenyi. In Graham v. SmithSearch
-
quoting Hetenyi, 348 F.2d at 864. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit took a similar approach in Tapp v. LucasSearch
-
the double jeopardy violation, the State Supreme Court reduced the second conviction to manslaughter. Citing Graham v. SmithSearch
-
the prohibition of the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
be prosecuted in one proceeding. Ashe v. SwensonSearch
-
U. S. 436 , 397 U. S. 453 -454 (1970) (BRENNAN, J., concurring). See, e.g., Brooks v. OklahomaSearch
-
Snell v. UnitedSearch
-
Werneth v. IdahoSearch
-
Thompson v. OklahomaSearch
-
by the double jeopardy violation, Mathews v. MarshallSearch
-
Hetenyi v. WilkinsSearch
-
F.2d Page 475 U. S. 259 844, 864 (CA2 1965), cert. denied sub nom. Mancusi v. HetenyiSearch
-
in a particular case that the bringing of a jeopardy-barred charge resulted in a compromise verdict, see, e.g., Price v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Butner v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. MathewsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial