|
|
Richardson v. United States, 486 U.S. 317 (1984)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Richardson v. United States, 486 U.S. 317 (1984)
Richardson v. United States No. 82-2113 Argued March 20, 1984 Decided June 29, 1984 486 U.S. 317
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Petitioner was indicted on three counts of federal narcotics violations. At his trial, the jury acquitted him on one count but was unable to agree on the others. The District Court declared a mistrial as to the remaining counts and scheduled a retrial. Petitioner then moved to bar a retrial, claiming that it would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The District Court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s appeal from that ruling for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Held:
1. Petitioner raised a colorable double jeopardy claim appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. While consideration of this claim would require the Court of Appeals to canvas the sufficiency of the evidence at the first trial, this fact alone does not prevent the District Court’s order denying the claim from being appealable. Pp. 320-322.
2. On the merits, however, regardless of the sufficiency of the evidence at his first trial, petitioner has no valid double jeopardy claim. The protection of the Double Jeopardy Clause, by its terms, applies only if there has been some event, such as an acquittal, that terminates the original jeopardy. Neither the failure of the jury to reach a verdict nor a trial court’s declaration of a mistrial following a hung jury is an event that terminates the original jeopardy. Like the defendant, the Government is entitled to resolution of the case by the jury. Pp. 322-326.
226 U.S.App.D.C. 342, 702 F.2d 1079, reversed.
REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and O’CONNOR, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 326. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 332.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Richardson v. United States, 486 U.S. 317 (1984) in 486 U.S. 317 486 U.S. 318. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=YRMW6PU1MAYIMP9.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Richardson v. United States, 486 U.S. 317 (1984), in 486 U.S. 317, page 486 U.S. 318. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=YRMW6PU1MAYIMP9.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Richardson v. United States, 486 U.S. 317 (1984). cited in 1984, 486 U.S. 317, pp.486 U.S. 318. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=YRMW6PU1MAYIMP9.
|