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 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2021 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2021Double jeopardy does not preclude “the government from retrying a defendant who succeeds in getting his first conviction set aside, through direct appeal or collateral attack, because of some error in the proceedings leading to conviction.” Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 38 (1988); see also State v. Harris, 919 S.W.2d 323, 328 (Tenn. 1996) (“[N]o constitutional provision prevents retrial after a reversal for legal error.”). 2021Double jeopardy does not preclude “the government from retrying a defendant who succeeds in getting his first conviction set aside, through direct appeal or collateral attack, because of some error in the proceedings leading to conviction.” Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 38 (1988); see also State v. Harris, 919 S.W.2d 323, 328 (Tenn. 1996) (“[N]o constitutional provision prevents retrial after a reversal for legal error.”). | 4 | 4 |
Lockhart v. Nelsongreen2 sentences2021Double jeopardy does not preclude “the government from retrying a defendant who succeeds in getting his first conviction set aside, through direct appeal or collateral attack, because of some error in the proceedings leading to conviction.” Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 38 (1988); see also State v. Harris, 919 S.W.2d 323, 328 (Tenn. 1996) (“[N]o constitutional provision prevents retrial after a reversal for legal error.”). 2021Double jeopardy does not preclude “the government from retrying a defendant who succeeds in getting his first conviction set aside, through direct appeal or collateral attack, because of some error in the proceedings leading to conviction.” Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 38 (1988); see also State v. Harris, 919 S.W.2d 323, 328 (Tenn. 1996) (“[N]o constitutional provision prevents retrial after a reversal for legal error.”). | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Ballgreen1 sentence2011As a general rule, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude “the government from retrying a defendant who succeeds in getting his first conviction set aside, through direct appeal or collateral attack, because of some error in the proceedings leading to conviction.” Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 38 (1988) (citing United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 672 (1896) (permitting retrial following reversal of conviction on direct appeal); United States v. Tateo, 377 U.S. 463, 464-66 (1964) (holding retrial permissible when conviction declared invalid on collateral attack)); see State v. Harris, | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Tateogreen1 sentence2011As a general rule, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude “the government from retrying a defendant who succeeds in getting his first conviction set aside, through direct appeal or collateral attack, because of some error in the proceedings leading to conviction.” Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 38 (1988) (citing United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 672 (1896) (permitting retrial following reversal of conviction on direct appeal); United States v. Tateo, 377 U.S. 463, 464-66 (1964) (holding retrial permissible when conviction declared invalid on collateral attack)); see State v. Harris, | 1 | 1 |
State v. Campbellgreen1 sentence2011As a general rule, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude “the government from retrying a defendant who succeeds in getting his first conviction set aside, through direct appeal or collateral attack, because of some error in the proceedings leading to conviction.” Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 38 (1988) (citing United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 672 (1896) (permitting retrial following reversal of conviction on direct appeal); United States v. Tateo, 377 U.S. 463, 464-66 (1964) (holding retrial permissible when conviction declared invalid on collateral attack)); see State v. Harris, | 1 | 1 |
Pickens v. Stategreen2 sentences1996Moreover, "upon appellate reversal of a conviction the Government is not limited at a new trial to evidence presented at the first trial, but is free to strengthen its case in any way it can by the introduction of new evidence." Pickens v. State, 292 Ark. 362 , 730 S.W.2d 230, 235 (1987), quoting, United States v. Shotwell Mfg. 1996Moreover, "upon appellate reversal of a conviction the Government is not limited at a new trial to evidence presented at the first trial, but is free to strengthen its case in any way it can by the introduction of new evidence." Pickens v. State, 292 Ark. 362 , 730 S.W.2d 230, 235 (1987), quoting, United States v. Shotwell Mfg. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Price v. Georgia
green
1 sentence2011Implicit within this general rule “is the concept of ‘continuing jeopardy,’” a principle that applies “‘where criminal proceedings against an accused have not run their full course.’” Lydon, 466 U.S. at 308 (quoting Price v. Georgia, 398 U.S. 323 , 326- 29 (1970)). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Justices of Boston Municipal Court v. Lydon
green
1 sentence2011Implicit within this general rule “is the concept of ‘continuing jeopardy,’” a principle that applies “‘where criminal proceedings against an accused have not run their full course.’” Lydon, 466 U.S. at 308 (quoting Price v. Georgia, 398 U.S. 323 , 326- 29 (1970)). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.