Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Green Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 16, 1957

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

68 entries 8 linked 60 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Ball US Supreme Court · May 25, 1896
    Relied / Followed
  2. Peters Vs. Hobby US Supreme Court · Jun 06, 1955
  3. United States Vs. Sanges US Supreme Court · Apr 04, 1892
  4. Wade Vs. Hunter US Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1949
  5. Brantley Vs. Georgia US Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1910
  6. Downes Vs. Bidwell US Supreme Court · May 27, 1901
  7. United States Vs. Perez US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1824
  8. United States Vs. Fries US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1799
  9. Green v. United
    Search
  10. States - 355 U.S. 184 (1957) U.S. Supreme Court Green v. United
    Search
  11. States, 355 U.S. 184 (1957) Green v. United
    Search
  12. for which he was not convicted and which was not involved in his appeal. Pp. 355 U. S. 193 -194. (d) Trono v. United
    Search
  13. Again he appealed. Sitting en banc, the Court of Appeals rejected his defense of former jeopardy, relying on Trono v. United
    Search
  14. cannot secure a new trial by means of an appeal even though an acquittal may appear to be erroneous. United States v. Ball
    Search
  15. U. S. 331 , 349 U. S. 344 -345. Cf. Kepner v. United
    Search
  16. is put to trial before a jury, so that, if the jury is discharged without his consent, he cannot be tried again. Wade v. Hunter
    Search
  17. Kepner v. United
    Search
  18. second time for an offense when his prior conviction for that same offense had been set aside on appeal. United States v. Ball
    Search
  19. degree murder came to an end when the jury was discharged, so that he could not be retried for that offense. Wade v. Hunter
    Search
  20. law. In any normal sense, however, it connotes some kind of voluntary knowing relinquishment of a right. Cf. Johnson v. Zerbst
    Search
  21. In short, he has no meaningful choice. And as Mr. Justice Holmes observed, with regard to this same matter in Kepner v. United
    Search
  22. again on the same charge. This Court has uniformly adhered to that basic premise. For example, in United States v. Ball
    Search
  23. Peters v. Hobby
    Search
  24. The Government argues, however, that we should accept Trono v. United
    Search
  25. insular possessions, particularly where the imposition of these guarantees would disrupt established customs. Downes v. Bidwell
    Search
  26. Mr. Justice Holmes refused to join the Peckham opinion but concurred in the result. Just the year before, in Kepner v. United
    Search
  27. United States v. Ball
    Search
  28. United States v. Gibert
    Search
  29. Brewster v. Swope
    Search
  30. State v. McCord
    Search
  31. Cross v. Commonwealth
    Search
  32. Smith v. State
    Search
  33. State v. Aus
    Search
  34. Mont. 82, 69 P.2d 584. Cf. Griffin v. Illinois
    Search
  35. held that second degree murder is a lesser offense which can be proved under a charge of felony murder. Goodall v. United
    Search
  36. brief, pp. 38-39, that the double jeopardy problem raised in this case has not been squarely before this Court. Palko v. Connecticut
    Search
  37. U. S. 284 , and Kring v. Missouri
    Search
  38. U. S. 221 , are not controlling here, since they involved trials in state courts. Stroud v. United
    Search
  39. Humphrey's Executor v. United
    Search
  40. Gompers v. United
    Search
  41. Regina v. Tancock
    Search
  42. The King v. Emden
    Search
  43. People v. Goodwin
    Search
  44. to order a new trial following conviction, was considered at length by Mr. Justice Story on circuit in United States v. Gibert
    Search
  45. Earlier, Mr. Justice Story had himself taken a nonliteral view of the constitutional provision in United States v. Perez
    Search
  46. except in rate instances, granting a new trial after conviction of a felony was undoubtedly correct, see The King v. Mawbey
    Search
  47. and on occasion this result has been expressly made to depend on the maxim prohibiting double jeopardy. The Queen v. Murphy
    Search
  48. The Attorney-General v. Bertrand
    Search
  49. The Queen v. Scaife
    Search
  50. exercised by many American courts from an early date in spite of provisions against double jeopardy. United States v. Fries
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial