Free, and it takes a minute. A syfert.com account skips the bot checks on search and case pages, keeps your details and plan under the account icon, and comes with an MCP token for Claude, ChatGPT or any MCP-capable assistant, emailed to you with a link to the setup page and always available from the account icon.
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 California opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Seelgreen2 sentences2024Since we necessarily afford absolute finality to a jury’s verdict of acquittal—no matter how erroneous its decision—it is difficult to conceive how society has any greater interest in retrying a defendant when, on review, it is decided as a matter of law that the jury could not properly have returned a verdict of guilty.’ ” (People v. Seel (2004) 34 Cal.4th 535, 544 ; see id. at p. 550 [where appellate court found insufficient evidence of deliberation or premeditation in attempted murder, the double jeopardy clause precluded retrial of that allegation].) Further, double jeopardy principles pre 2022(See People v. Seel (2004) 34 34 Cal.4th 535, 544 [unlike a reversal for trial error, “the double jeopardy clause precludes a second trial after a conviction is reversed based solely on insufficient evidence”].) Section 186.22 enhances the punishment of a person convicted of an enumerated felony committed “for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members.” (Former § 186.22, subd. (b)(1), (4).) Thus, there are “two prongs to the gang enhancement under section | 1 | 2 |
People v. Hatchgreen2 sentences2004Since we necessarily afford absolute finality to a jury's verdict of acquittal no matter how erroneous its decision it is difficult to conceive how society has any greater interest in retrying a defendant when, on review, it is decided as a matter of law that the jury could not properly have returned a verdict of guilty." ( Id. at p. 16, 98 S.Ct. 2141 , italics omitted.) "A reversal based on the insufficiency of the evidence has the same effect [as a judgment of acquittal] because it means that no rational factfinder could have voted to convict the defendant." ( Tibbs, supra, 457 U.S. at p 2004Since we necessarily afford absolute finality to a jury's verdict of acquittal no matter how erroneous its decision it is difficult to conceive how society has any greater interest in retrying a defendant when, on review, it is decided as a matter of law that the jury could not properly have returned a verdict of guilty." ( Id. at p. 16, 98 S.Ct. 2141 , italics omitted.) "A reversal based on the insufficiency of the evidence has the same effect [as a judgment of acquittal] because it means that no rational factfinder could have voted to convict the defendant." ( Tibbs, supra, 457 U.S. at p | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2004Since we necessarily afford absolute finality to a jury's verdict of acquittal no matter how erroneous its decision it is difficult to conceive how society has any greater interest in retrying a defendant when, on review, it is decided as a matter of law that the jury could not properly have returned a verdict of guilty." ( Id. at p. 16, 98 S.Ct. 2141 , italics omitted.) "A reversal based on the insufficiency of the evidence has the same effect [as a judgment of acquittal] because it means that no rational factfinder could have voted to convict the defendant." ( Tibbs, supra, 457 U.S. at p 2004Since we necessarily afford absolute finality to a jury's verdict of acquittal no matter how erroneous its decision it is difficult to conceive how society has any greater interest in retrying a defendant when, on review, it is decided as a matter of law that the jury could not properly have returned a verdict of guilty." ( Id. at p. 16, 98 S.Ct. 2141 , italics omitted.) "A reversal based on the insufficiency of the evidence has the same effect [as a judgment of acquittal] because it means that no rational factfinder could have voted to convict the defendant." ( Tibbs, supra, 457 U.S. at p | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Burks v. United States
green
2 sentences2004In Burks , the high court held that the double jeopardy clause precludes a second trial after a conviction is reversed based solely on insufficient evidence. ( Burks, supra, 437 U.S. at p. 18 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 .) Unlike a reversal for trial error, which "does not constitute a decision to the effect that the government has failed to prove its case" ( id. at p. 15, 98 S.Ct. 2141 ), a reversal based on evidentiary insufficiency "means that the government's case was so lacking that it should not have even been submitted to the jury. 2004In Burks , the high court held that the double jeopardy clause precludes a second trial after a conviction is reversed based solely on insufficient evidence. ( Burks, supra, 437 U.S. at p. 18 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 .) Unlike a reversal for trial error, which "does not constitute a decision to the effect that the government has failed to prove its case" ( id. at p. 15, 98 S.Ct. 2141 ), a reversal based on evidentiary insufficiency "means that the government's case was so lacking that it should not have even been submitted to the jury. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Tibbs v. Florida
green
2 sentences2004Since we necessarily afford absolute finality to a jury's verdict of acquittal no matter how erroneous its decision it is difficult to conceive how society has any greater interest in retrying a defendant when, on review, it is decided as a matter of law that the jury could not properly have returned a verdict of guilty." ( Id. at p. 16, 98 S.Ct. 2141 , italics omitted.) "A reversal based on the insufficiency of the evidence has the same effect [as a judgment of acquittal] because it means that no rational factfinder could have voted to convict the defendant." ( Tibbs, supra, 457 U.S. at p 2004Since we necessarily afford absolute finality to a jury's verdict of acquittal no matter how erroneous its decision it is difficult to conceive how society has any greater interest in retrying a defendant when, on review, it is decided as a matter of law that the jury could not properly have returned a verdict of guilty." ( Id. at p. 16, 98 S.Ct. 2141 , italics omitted.) "A reversal based on the insufficiency of the evidence has the same effect [as a judgment of acquittal] because it means that no rational factfinder could have voted to convict the defendant." ( Tibbs, supra, 457 U.S. at p | 2 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Alexander L.
green
1 sentence2024(See Alexander L., supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 612 .) “Unlike a reversal for trial error, which ‘does not constitute a decision to the effect that the government has failed to prove its case’ [citation], a reversal based on evidentiary insufficiency ‘means that the government’s case was so lacking that it should not have been submitted to the jury. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Superior Court (Marks)
green
1 sentence2022(Marks, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 62 .) The court concluded that section 1157 should have the same effect and barred retrial on the greater degree crime. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Perez
green
1 sentence2022(See People v. Seel (2004) 34 34 Cal.4th 535, 544 [unlike a reversal for trial error, “the double jeopardy clause precludes a second trial after a conviction is reversed based solely on insufficient evidence”].) Section 186.22 enhances the punishment of a person convicted of an enumerated felony committed “for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members.” (Former § 186.22, subd. (b)(1), (4).) Thus, there are “two prongs to the gang enhancement under section | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.