Citation network
Grady Vs. Corbin
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 29, 1990
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. 508 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Grady v. CorbinSearch
-
U.S. 508 (1990) Grady v. CorbinSearch
-
dictum in Illinois v. VitaleSearch
-
U. S. 410 , that if two successive prosecutions were not barred by the test of Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
a single prosecution -- does not protect defendants sufficiently from the burdens of multiple trials, see, e.g., Brown v. OhioSearch
-
exclusive means of determining whether a subsequent prosecution violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. See, e.g., Harris v. OklahomaSearch
-
does not forever prevent the government from introducing the same evidence in a subsequent proceeding, see Dowling v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 526 . Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. We have long held, see Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
In Illinois v. VitaleSearch
-
Corbin v. HillerySearch
-
The facts and contentions raised here mirror almost exactly those raised in this Court 10 years ago in Illinois v. VitaleSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
and our later decision in Harris v. OklahomaSearch
-
Garrett v. UnitedSearch
-
Green v. UnitedSearch
-
proof, thus increasing the risk of an erroneous conviction for one or more of the offenses charged. See, e.g., Tibbs v. FloridaSearch
-
Hoag v. NewSearch
-
U. S. 166 -167, n. 6. Justice Powell, writing for the Court in Brown, provided two examples. In Ashe v. SwensonSearch
-
at 432 U. S. 166 -167, n. 6. Furthermore, in the same Term we decided Brown, we reiterated in Harris v. OklahomaSearch
-
quoting Brief in Opposition 4). See also Payne v. VirginiaSearch
-
government from introducing that same evidence in a subsequent Page 495 U. S. 522 proceeding. See Dowling v. UnitedSearch
-
But these facts cannot excuse the need for scrupulous adherence to our constitutional principles. See Santobello v. NewSearch
-
U.S. Const., Amdt. 5. It is enforceable against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
This issue has been raised before us twice in recent years without resolution. See Fugate v. NewSearch
-
We recognized in Brown v. OhioSearch
-
to sustain that charge have not occurred or have not been discovered despite the exercise of due diligence. See Diaz v. UnitedSearch
-
in the context of successive prosecutions. See Jones v. ThomasSearch
-
Ohio v. JohnsonSearch
-
Albernaz v. UnitedSearch
-
Whalen v. UnitedSearch
-
Simpson v. UnitedSearch
-
quoting Brown v. OhioSearch
-
Iannelli v. UnitedSearch
-
Gore v. UnitedSearch
-
lawfully be prosecuted for stealing from the homeowner's servant during the same breaking and entering) with Ashe v. SwensonSearch
-
Ohio v. JohnsonSearch
-
the Double Jeopardy Clause would bar subsequent prosecution of the component offense. See Harris v. OklahomaSearch
-
United States v. RaginsSearch
-
States, 471 U. S. 773 , 471 U. S. 790 (1985). But see Jones v. ThomasSearch
-
primarily on my view that the inconsistency Page 495 U. S. 525 between the Court's opinion today and Dowling v. UnitedSearch
-
Ibid. See App. in Dowling v. UnitedSearch
-
judgment. I The Double Jeopardy Clause, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
Burks v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 437 U. S. 1 , 437 U. S. 11 (1978), quoting Green v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Grady v. CorbinSearch
-
Illinois v. VitaleSearch
-
of Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial