Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1984–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Abraham v. Justices of New York Supreme Courtgreen1 sentence2007Supreme Ct. of Bronx County ( 37 NY2d 560, 565 [1975]), we said that CPL 40.20 (1) codified the rule of several earlier cases, including People v Lo Cicero ( 14 NY2d 374 [1964]); Lo Cicero , decided before CPL 40.20 was enacted, rejected the dual sovereignty doctrine under New York law. | 1 | 1 |
MATTER OF BOOTH v. Clarygreen1 sentence2007In Matter of Booth v Clary ( 83 NY2d 675, 679 [1994]) we cited CPL 40.20 (1) as reflecting the “intricate details” of New York’s rather broad statutory double jeopardy protections. | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Ohiogreen1 sentence1984(Brown v Ohio, supra, p 164, n 4 .) MANDATORY JOINDER AND FAIRNESS PRINCIPLES Even if this prosecution were not barred by double jeopardy concerns, principles of mandatory joinder and basic fairness compel dismissal of the Bronx indictment. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hintongreen1 sentence1984(Cf. People v Hinton, 40 NY2d 345,353 [age of victim at time of crime, not time of trial, controls when age an element of crime].) It is further noted that nothing in the history of the statute suggests that it was designed to abrogate the dual sovereignty doctrine. . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cozine v. Crabtree
green
2 sentences2014Succinctly stated, “|j]ust as the dual sovereignty doctrine acknowledges and protects the rights of each sovereign to exact as much punishment for a crime as that sovereign desires, the doctrine also acknowledges and protects the rights of each sovereign to exact as little punishment for the crime as that sovereign desires” (Cozine v Crabtree, 15 F Supp 2d at 1010 ). 2014Succinctly stated, “|j]ust as the dual sovereignty doctrine acknowledges and protects the rights of each sovereign to exact as much punishment for a crime as that sovereign desires, the doctrine also acknowledges and protects the rights of each sovereign to exact as little punishment for the crime as that sovereign desires” (Cozine v Crabtree, 15 F Supp 2d at 1010 ). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Lo Cicero
green
1 sentence2007Supreme Ct. of Bronx County ( 37 NY2d 560, 565 [1975]), we said that CPL 40.20 (1) codified the rule of several earlier cases, including People v Lo Cicero ( 14 NY2d 374 [1964]); Lo Cicero , decided before CPL 40.20 was enacted, rejected the dual sovereignty doctrine under New York law. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.