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.
7 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey 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. Stanigreen2 sentences2023We have previously held that the 30 “essence to the doctrine of jeopardy” is “that the State may not retreat from the field when its case turns sour and then be permitted to sally forth on a future day before a new jury when its case is refreshed and reinforced.” Gallegan, 117 N.J. at 346 (quoting State v. Stani, 197 N.J. 1993If there be any essence to the doctrine of jeopardy, it must be that the State may not retreat from the field when its case turns sour and then be permitted to sally forth on a future day before a new jury when its case is refreshed and reinforced. [Id. at 150-51, 484 A.2d 341.] Similarly, in Mizell v. Attorney General of New York, supra, one prosecution witness left the State subsequent to the empaneling of a jury due to the death of a family member and another simply failed to appear in court. | 2 | 3 |
United States v. Jorngreen2 sentences1989On appeal of an attempt to retry the defendant, the court held that if the trial court erred in not granting a postponement as requested by the State, it afforded no excuse for stripping defendant of his constitutional rights: If there be any essence to the doctrine of jeopardy, it must be that the State may not retreat from the field when its ease turns sour and then be permitted to sally forth on a future day before a new jury when its case is refreshed and reinforced. [State v. Stani, supra, 197 N.J.Super. at 151 (citing United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 479 , 91 S.Ct. 547, 554 , 27 L.Ed 1989On appeal of an attempt to retry the defendant, the court held that if the trial court erred in not granting a postponement as requested by the State, it afforded no excuse for stripping defendant of his constitutional rights: If there be any essence to the doctrine of jeopardy, it must be that the State may not retreat from the field when its ease turns sour and then be permitted to sally forth on a future day before a new jury when its case is refreshed and reinforced. [State v. Stani, supra, 197 N.J.Super. at 151 (citing United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 479 , 91 S.Ct. 547, 554 , 27 L.Ed | 2 | 2 |
State v. Farmergreen2 sentences2023First, Farmer acknowledges that “there is no over-all formula, no hard and fast rule for determining when an order of mistrial will cause the jeopardy bar to spring into being, [and so] each case must depend upon its own facts and the urgency of its circumstances.” Id. at 177 . 2000Clearly the societal right to have the accused tried and punished if found guilty stands side by side with the right of the accused to be prosecuted fairly and not oppressively. [Id. at 174-75, 224 A.2d 481 (citations omitted).] We noted that “there is no over-all formula, no hard and fast rule for determining when an order of mistrial will cause the jeopardy bar to spring into being, [and that] each case must depend upon its own facts and the urgency of its circumstances.” Id. at 177 , 224 A.2d 481 . | 1 | 2 |
Downum v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1989On appeal of an attempt to retry the defendant, the court held that if the trial court erred in not granting a postponement as requested by the State, it afforded no excuse for stripping defendant of his constitutional rights: If there be any essence to the doctrine of jeopardy, it must be that the State may not retreat from the field when its ease turns sour and then be permitted to sally forth on a future day before a new jury when its case is refreshed and reinforced. [State v. Stani, supra, 197 N.J.Super. at 151 (citing United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 479 , 91 S.Ct. 547, 554 , 27 L.Ed 1989On appeal of an attempt to retry the defendant, the court held that if the trial court erred in not granting a postponement as requested by the State, it afforded no excuse for stripping defendant of his constitutional rights: If there be any essence to the doctrine of jeopardy, it must be that the State may not retreat from the field when its ease turns sour and then be permitted to sally forth on a future day before a new jury when its case is refreshed and reinforced. [State v. Stani, supra, 197 N.J.Super. at 151 (citing United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 479 , 91 S.Ct. 547, 554 , 27 L.Ed | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gallegan
green
2 sentences2023The “essence to the doctrine of jeopardy” is “that the State may not retreat from the field when its case turns sour and then be permitted to sally forth on a future day before a new jury when its case is refreshed and reinforced.” Gallegan, 117 N.J. at 346 . 2023We have previously held that the 30 “essence to the doctrine of jeopardy” is “that the State may not retreat from the field when its case turns sour and then be permitted to sally forth on a future day before a new jury when its case is refreshed and reinforced.” Gallegan, 117 N.J. at 346 (quoting State v. Stani, 197 N.J. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Shomo
green
2 sentences1994Cf. State v. Shomo, supra, 129 N.J. at 257-59 , 609 A. 2d 394 . 1994Cf. State v. Shomo, supra, 129 N.J. at 257-59 , 609 A. 2d 394 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
James Mizell v. The Attorney General of the State of New York and Ano.
green
1 sentence1993If there be any essence to the doctrine of jeopardy, it must be that the State may not retreat from the field when its case turns sour and then be permitted to sally forth on a future day before a new jury when its case is refreshed and reinforced. [Id. at 150-51, 484 A.2d 341.] Similarly, in Mizell v. Attorney General of New York, supra, one prosecution witness left the State subsequent to the empaneling of a jury due to the death of a family member and another simply failed to appear in court. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Comingore
green
2 sentences1983Cf. People v. Comingore, 65 Cal.App.3d 670 , 135 Cal.Rptr. 476 (Cal.Ct.App.1977), vacated and aff’d, 20 Cal.3d 142 , 570 P.2d 723 , 141 Cal.Rptr. 542 (1977) (recognizing the procedural nature of the jeopardy bar against prosecutions by dual sovereignties under § 793 of the California Penal Code). 1983Cf. People v. Comingore, 65 Cal.App.3d 670 , 135 Cal.Rptr. 476 (Cal.Ct.App.1977), vacated and aff’d, 20 Cal.3d 142 , 570 P.2d 723 , 141 Cal.Rptr. 542 (1977) (recognizing the procedural nature of the jeopardy bar against prosecutions by dual sovereignties under § 793 of the California Penal Code). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.