“no double jeopardy impediment to appellant's retrial on the basis of the prosecution's alleged knowing use of perjured testimony at the first trial”
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Tomlin v. State
no double jeopardy impediment to appellant's retrial on the basis of the prosecution's alleged knowing use of perjured testimony at the first trial
discussed
Cited "see"
Spears v. State
See Robinson v. State , 405 So.2d 1328 , 1332 (Ala.Cr.App.) ("we hold that there was no double jeopardy impediment to appellant's retrial on the basis of the prosecution's alleged knowing use of perjured testimony at the first trial"), cert. denied, 405 So.2d 1334 (Ala. 1981); Scarbrough v. State , *Page 23 528 So.2d 890 , 893 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988) (no jeopardy where mistrial resulted from exhibition of defendant before jury in shackles and prison clothes where there was no evidence of any prosecutorial misconduct causing the mistrial).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Harvey v. State
See also Robinson v. State , 405 So.2d 1328 , 1334 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 405 So.2d 1334 (Ala. 1981).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ex Parte: James Louis Robinson. (Re: James Louis Robinson
v.
State of Alabama).
v.
State of Alabama).
80-825.
Supreme Court of Alabama.
Oct 30, 1981.
Shores, Torbert, Maddox, Jones, Beatty.
Cited by 6 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Court of Criminal Appeals of A… (1)
SHORES, Justice.
WRIT DENIED — NO OPINION.
TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, JONES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.