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 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1964–2007 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado 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. Castrogreen2 sentences2007To justify a finding of manifest necessity, not only must the cireumstances be serious and outside the control of the trial court, they must also be such that "continuing with the trial would interfere with or retard the 'administration of honest, fair, evenhanded justice to either, both, or any, of the parties to the proceeding.'" People v. Berreth, supra, 13 P.3d at 1217 (quoting People v. Castro, 657 P.2d 932, 942 (Colo.1983), and Brown v. People, 132 Colo. 561, 569 , 291 P.2d 680, 684 (1955)). 2007To justify a finding of manifest necessity, not only must the circumstances be serious and outside the control of the trial court, they must also be such that "continuing with the trial would interfere with or retard the `administration of honest, fair, even-handed justice to either, both, or any, of the parties to the proceeding.'" People v. Berreth, supra, 13 P.3d at 1217 (quoting People v. Castro, 657 P.2d 932, 942 (Colo.1983), and Brown v. People, 132 Colo. 561, 569 , 291 P.2d 680, 684 (1955)). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2007To justify a finding of manifest necessity, not only must the circumstances be serious and outside the control of the trial court, they must also be such that "continuing with the trial would interfere with or retard the `administration of honest, fair, even-handed justice to either, both, or any, of the parties to the proceeding.'" People v. Berreth, supra, 13 P.3d at 1217 (quoting People v. Castro, 657 P.2d 932, 942 (Colo.1983), and Brown v. People, 132 Colo. 561, 569 , 291 P.2d 680, 684 (1955)). 2007To justify a finding of manifest necessity, not only must the circumstances be serious and outside the control of the trial court, they must also be such that "continuing with the trial would interfere with or retard the `administration of honest, fair, even-handed justice to either, both, or any, of the parties to the proceeding.'" People v. Berreth, supra, 13 P.3d at 1217 (quoting People v. Castro, 657 P.2d 932, 942 (Colo.1983), and Brown v. People, 132 Colo. 561, 569 , 291 P.2d 680, 684 (1955)). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bacagreen2 sentences2007The manifest necessity doctrine recognizes that "a defendant's valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal must in some instances be subordinated to the public's interest in fair trials designed to end in just judgments." Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 689 , 69 S.Ct. 834, 837 , 93 L.Ed. 974 (1949); see People v. Baca, 193 Colo. 9, 11-12 , 562 P.2d 411, 412-13 (1977). 2007The manifest necessity doctrine recognizes that "a defendant's valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal must in some instances be subordinated to the public's interest in fair trials designed to end in just judgments." Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 689 , 69 S.Ct. 834, 837 , 93 L.Ed. 974 (1949); see People v. Baca, 193 Colo. 9, 11-12 , 562 P.2d 411, 412-13 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Sanfordgreen2 sentences1977See United States v. Sanford, 429 U.S. 14 , 97 S.Ct. 20 , 50 L.Ed.2d 17 (1976) ("If the mistrial is declared at the behest of the defendant, the manifest necessity test does not apply."); United States v. Dinitz, supra (different considerations than the "manifest necessity" standard apply when a mistrial is declared at the defendant's request). 1977See United States v. Sanford, 429 U.S. 14 , 97 S.Ct. 20 , 50 L.Ed.2d 17 (1976) ("If the mistrial is declared at the behest of the defendant, the manifest necessity test does not apply."); United States v. Dinitz, supra (different considerations than the "manifest necessity" standard apply when a mistrial is declared at the defendant's request). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wade v. Hunter
green
2 sentences2007The manifest necessity doctrine recognizes that "a defendant's valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal must in some instances be subordinated to the public's interest in fair trials designed to end in just judgments." Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 689 , 69 S.Ct. 834, 837 , 93 L.Ed. 974 (1949); see People v. Baca, 193 Colo. 9, 11-12 , 562 P.2d 411, 412-13 (1977). 2007The manifest necessity doctrine recognizes that "a defendant's valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal must in some instances be subordinated to the public's interest in fair trials designed to end in just judgments." Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 689 , 69 S.Ct. 834, 837 , 93 L.Ed. 974 (1949); see People v. Baca, 193 Colo. 9, 11-12 , 562 P.2d 411, 412-13 (1977). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Berreth
green
2 sentences2007To justify a finding of manifest necessity, not only must the cireumstances be serious and outside the control of the trial court, they must also be such that "continuing with the trial would interfere with or retard the 'administration of honest, fair, evenhanded justice to either, both, or any, of the parties to the proceeding.'" People v. Berreth, supra, 13 P.3d at 1217 (quoting People v. Castro, 657 P.2d 932, 942 (Colo.1983), and Brown v. People, 132 Colo. 561, 569 , 291 P.2d 680, 684 (1955)). 2007To justify a finding of manifest necessity, not only must the circumstances be serious and outside the control of the trial court, they must also be such that "continuing with the trial would interfere with or retard the `administration of honest, fair, even-handed justice to either, both, or any, of the parties to the proceeding.'" People v. Berreth, supra, 13 P.3d at 1217 (quoting People v. Castro, 657 P.2d 932, 942 (Colo.1983), and Brown v. People, 132 Colo. 561, 569 , 291 P.2d 680, 684 (1955)). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Schwartz
green
1 sentence2004People v. Schwartz, supra, 678 P.2d at 1011 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
United States v. Perez
green
2 sentences1984They are to exercise a sound discretion on the subject; and it is impossible to find all the circumstances, which would render it proper to interfere." United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579, 580 , 6 L.Ed. 165 (1824). 1984They are to exercise a sound discretion on the subject; and it is impossible to find all the circumstances, which would render it proper to interfere." United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579, 580 , 6 L.Ed. 165 (1824). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
United States v. Dinitz
green
2 sentences1984Dinitz, 424 U.S. at 611 , 96 S.Ct. at 1081 . 1984Dinitz, 424 U.S. at 611 , 96 S.Ct. at 1081 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
United States v. Tateo
green
2 sentences1977The defendant's motion for a mistrial is generally considered to operate as a waiver of the principle of "manifest necessity," which protects him from retrial under the double jeopardy clause. [3] See United States v. Dinitz, supra ; Illinois v. Somerville, supra ; United States v. Tateo, 377 U.S. 463 , 84 S.Ct. 1587 , 12 L.Ed.2d 448 (1964). 1977The defendant's motion for a mistrial is generally considered to operate as a waiver of the principle of "manifest necessity," which protects him from retrial under the double jeopardy clause. [3] See United States v. Dinitz, supra ; Illinois v. Somerville, supra ; United States v. Tateo, 377 U.S. 463 , 84 S.Ct. 1587 , 12 L.Ed.2d 448 (1964). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Cornero v. United States
green
2 sentences1964Cornero v. United States, 9 Cir., 48 F.2d 69 . 1964Cornero v. United States, 48 F.2d 69 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.