Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Kepner Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 31, 1904

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

71 entries 8 linked 63 unlinked
Show
  1. Murphy Vs. Ramsey US Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1885
  2. Downes Vs. Bidwell US Supreme Court · May 27, 1901
  3. Hawaii Vs. Mankichi US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1903
  4. Townsend Vs. Little US Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1883
  5. United States Vs. Ball US Supreme Court · May 25, 1896
  6. United States Vs. Sanges US Supreme Court · Apr 04, 1892
  7. United States Vs. Perez US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1824
  8. Hopt Vs. People US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1881
  9. Kepner v. United
    Search
  10. States - 195 U.S. 100 (1904) U.S. Supreme Court Kepner v. United
    Search
  11. States, 195 U.S. 100 (1904) Kepner v. United
    Search
  12. is settled by an unbroken line of decisions of this court, and is no longer open to question. American Ins. Co. v. Canter
    Search
  13. Mormon Church v. United
    Search
  14. to the common law from which it was taken. 1 Kent, Com. 336. United Page 195 U. S. 126 States v. Wong
    Search
  15. the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett
    Search
  16. Boyd v. United
    Search
  17. Smith v. Alabama
    Search
  18. Bradley, J., in Moore v. United
    Search
  19. offense. The rule is thus stated by Hawkins in his Pleas of the Crown, quoted by Mr. Justice Story in United States v. Gibert
    Search
  20. And, in as late a case as Wemyss v. Hopkins
    Search
  21. with a crime before a tribunal properly organized and competent to try him, certainly so after acquittal. Coleman v. Tennessee
    Search
  22. jeopardy as much as he could have been in those tribunals where a jury is alone competent to convict or acquit. People v. Miner
    Search
  23. State v. Bowen
    Search
  24. State v. Layne
    Search
  25. Tennessee 668. In United States v. Sanges
    Search
  26. In the course of the opinion Justice Gray cites, among other cases, Com. v. Commings
    Search
  27. and Same v. McGinnis
    Search
  28. by statute after an acquittal of the offense is shown by the subsequent decision of this court in United States v. Ball
    Search
  29. and therefore no bar to subsequent indictment and trial in a court which has jurisdiction of the offense. Commonwealth v. Peters
    Search
  30. upon an acquittal, the defendant, indeed, will not seek to have it reversed, and the government cannot. United States v. Sanges
    Search
  31. although not followed by any judgment, is a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. United States v. Sanges
    Search
  32. Commonwealth v. Tuck
    Search
  33. West v. State
    Search
  34. which deny the right of second trial where a competent court has convicted or acquitted the accused. People v. Webb
    Search
  35. The author's conclusion has support in the case of People v. Miner
    Search
  36. of that State, providing that no person shall be put twice in jeopardy for the same offense. So, in the case of People v. Webb
    Search
  37. The case of State v. Lee
    Search
  38. upon the subject of jeopardy, and we conclude there is none. The exceptional character of the decision in State v. Lee
    Search
  39. People v. Corning
    Search
  40. he may be tried a second time, even for his life, if the jury Page 195 U. S. 135 disagree, United States v. Perez
    Search
  41. Simmons v. United
    Search
  42. Logan v. United
    Search
  43. Thompson v. United
    Search
  44. their agreement and verdict, if the verdict is set aside on the prisoner's exceptions for error in the trial. Hopt v. People
    Search
  45. I may refer further to the opinions of Kent and Curtis in People v. Olcott
    Search
  46. Curtis, 23, and to the well reasoned decision in State v. Lee
    Search
  47. mistake that did him harm. It cannot matter that the prisoner procures the second trial. In a capital case, like Hopt v. People
    Search
  48. cannot waive, and certainly will not be taken to waive without meaning it, fundamental constitutional rights. Thompson v. Utah
    Search
  49. on the face of the record, as when he is tried on a defective indictment, if judgment is not arrested. United States v. Ball
    Search
  50. was decided, and it is all that was decided or intimated, relevant to this case, in Wemyss Page 195 U. S. 137 v. Hopkins
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial