Citation network
Dowling Vs. U.S.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 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. 342 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Dowling v. U.SSearch
-
U.S. 342 (1990) Dowling v. UnitedSearch
-
probable that the error did not prejudice Dowling. The court declined to apply the more stringent standard of Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Government from relitigating an issue of ultimate fact that has been determined by a valid and final judgment, Ashe v. SwensonSearch
-
relitigating an issue when it is presented in a subsequent action governed by a lower standard of proof, United States v. OneSearch
-
One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. UnitedSearch
-
was tried again and convicted, but the Third Circuit reversed this conviction on appeal. Government of Virgin Islands v. DowlingSearch
-
but nevertheless affirmed Dowling's conviction. 855 F.2d 114 (1988). Relying on its decision in United States v. KellerSearch
-
evidence was inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The court noted that we had recently held in Huddleston v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Id. at 122-124. The Court of Appeals explicitly declined to apply the more stringent standard, see Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
that the admission of Henry's testimony did not offend the Constitution and therefore declined to apply the Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
barred further prosecution in the present case. The issue is the inadmissibility of Henry's testimony. In Ashe v. SwensonSearch
-
Henry's testimony at the third trial in the bank robbery case. We disagree because, unlike the situation in Ashe v. SwensonSearch
-
did not determine an ultimate issue in the present case. This much Dowling concedes, and we decline to extend Ashe v. SwensonSearch
-
the Government sought to introduce Henry's testimony under Rule 404(b), and, as mentioned earlier, in Huddleston v. UnitedSearch
-
an issue when it is presented in a subsequent action governed by a lower standard of proof. In United States v. OneSearch
-
Id. at 465 U. S. 361 -362. In One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. UnitedSearch
-
Helvering v. MitchellSearch
-
his first trial represented a jury determination that he was not one of the men who entered Ms. Henry's home. In Ashe v. SwensonSearch
-
that the issue whose relitigation he seeks to foreclose was actually decided in the first proceeding. United States v. CitronSearch
-
United States v. RaginsSearch
-
United States v. GentileSearch
-
United States v. BaugusSearch
-
Page 493 U. S. 351 United States v. HewittSearch
-
United States v. LaskySearch
-
and private notions' of fairness and to 'disregard the limits that bind judges in their judicial function.' Rochin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
those 'fundamental conceptions of justice which lie at the base of our civil and political institutions,' Mooney v. HolohanSearch
-
S. 103 , 294 U. S. 112 (1935), and which define 'the community's sense of fair play and decency,' Rochin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
first. In any event, inconsistent verdicts are Page 493 U. S. 354 constitutionally tolerable. See Standefer v. UnitedSearch
-
that we should place the burden on the government in this instance because, as opposed to the situation in Ashe v. SwensonSearch
-
in this case, Dowling only faces the risk of the introduction of prejudicial evidence, whereas, in Ashe v. SwensonSearch
-
consideration of whether the admission of this testimony was harmless error under the standard enunciated in Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 117 , 449 U. S. 129 (1980) (quoting United States v. ScottSearch
-
after an acquittal. United States v. MartinSearch
-
for double jeopardy purposes unless each offense requires proof of a fact that the other does not. Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
An acquittal on a greater or lesser included offense, for example, bars prosecution on the other offense. Brown v. OhioSearch
-
Fong Foo v. UnitedSearch
-
Sanabria v. UnitedSearch
-
of judgments and a strong public interest in protecting individuals against governmental overreaching. See Brown v. OhioSearch
-
quoting United States v. JornSearch
-
Scott, 437 U.S. at 437 U. S. 91 (quoting Green v. UnitedSearch
-
after an acquittal. In Ashe v. SwensonSearch
-
Huddleston v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. OneSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial