JEOPARDY AND MISTRIALS

• NCJ Number: 40082
• Journal: University of Pennsylvania Law Review Volume: 125 Issue: 3 Dated: (JANUARY 1977) Pages: 449-539
• Author(s): S J SCHULHOFER
• Date Published: 1977
• Length: 91 pages
• Corporate Author: University of Pennsylvania
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

ANALYSIS OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, FROM THE 'MANIFEST' NECESSITY OF THE PEREZ CASE TO THE PRESENT.

Abstract

IN U.S. V. PEREZ (1824), THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE DISCHARGE OF A HUNG JURY DOES NOT BAR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT. IF A MISTRIAL IS PROMPTED BY A 'MANIFEST NECESSITY,' THE DEFENDANT MAY BE RETRIED WITHOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY. THIS ARTICLE EXAMINES THE SOURCES OF DIFFICULTY WITH THE PEREZ TEST. THE DOCTRINE OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY IS EXPLORED AS WELL AS THE LEADING PERTINENT SUPREME COURT DECISIONS. THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT THE SUPREME COURT RELAXATION OF LIMITATIONS UPON RETRIAL AFTER MISTRIAL IN ILLINOIS V. SOMERVILLE (1973) PROVIDES THE MOST APPROPRIATE STANDARD FOR ASSESSING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A RETRIAL IN A WIDE RANGE OF SITUATIONS....MSP