To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Ashe v. Swenson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ashe v. Swenson
Argued November 13, 1969
Decided April 6, 1970
Full case nameBob Fred Ashe, Petitioner v. Harold R. Swenson, Warden
Citations397 U.S. 436 (more)
90 S. Ct. 1189; 25 L. Ed. 2d 469; 1970 U.S. LEXIS 54
Holding
The Double Jeopardy Clause embodies collateral estoppel as a constitutional requirement. Where a jury bases a judgment of acquittal on a finding that the defendant did not participate in the offense charged, this issue may not be relitigated in another trial.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · William O. Douglas
John M. Harlan II · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall
Case opinions
MajorityStewart, joined by Black, Douglas, Harlan, Brennan, White, Marshall
ConcurrenceBlack
ConcurrenceHarlan
ConcurrenceBrennan, joined by Douglas, Marshall
DissentBurger
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Hoag v. New Jersey, 356 U.S. 464 (1958)

Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that "when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit." The Double Jeopardy Clause prevents a state from relitigating a question already decided in favor of a defendant at a previous trial. Here, the guarantee against double jeopardy enforceable through the Fifth Amendment provided that where the defendant was acquitted of robbing one victim, the government could not prosecute the criminal defendant in a second trial for a different victim in the same robbery.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/1
    Views:
    363
  • Collateral estoppel

Transcription

Background

After a group of masked robbers committed armed robbery of a poker game in Lee's Summit, Missouri, Bob Fred Ashe was indicted on six separate counts of committing an armed robbery of one of the six players. At trial, a jury returned a general verdict of not guilty "due to insufficient evidence". Six weeks later, Ashe was brought to trial for the robbery of another of the poker players. This time, a prosecution witness who did not confidently identify Ashe as a robber was not called, and several witnesses expressed greater confidence that Ashe was the robber.[1] At the conclusion of the trial, Ashe was found guilty and sentenced to thirty-five years.

The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding no former jeopardy violation. After the federal district court denied habeas corpus relief, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

Supreme Court

Ashe petitioned for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court, which was granted.[2] His case before the Supreme Court was presented pro bono by noted Washington attorney and former Secretary of Defense Clark M. Clifford. The state's case was argued by Gene E. Voigts, First Assistant Attorney General of Missouri.[3]

The Supreme Court concluded from the record of the prior trial that the "single rationally conceivable issue in dispute before the jury was whether [Ashe] had been one of the robbers. And the jury by its verdict found that he had not. The federal rule of law, therefore, would make a second prosecution for the robbery . . . wholly impermissible."

Because the first jury, by its verdict, had rejected the claim that Ashe was one of the robbers, the Supreme Court held that the State could not "constitutionally hail him before a new jury to litigate that issue again."

See also

Further reading

  • Deason, M. C. Jr. (1970). "Rule of Collateral Estoppel Embodied in the Fifth Amendment Guaranty against Double Jeopardy". Cumberland-Samford Law Review. 1: 355. ISSN 0045-9275.
  • Schaefer, Walter V. (1970). "Unresolved Issues in the Law of Double Jeopardy: Waller and Ashe". California Law Review. 58 (2): 391–404. doi:10.2307/3479664. JSTOR 3479664.

References

  1. ^ Edmiston, Robert Ruyle (1971). "Ashe v. Swenson: A New Look at Double Jeopardy". Tulsa Law Review. 7 (1): 68–73.
  2. ^ Ashe v. Swenson, 393 U.S. 1115 (1969).
  3. ^ Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 437 (1970).

External links


This page was last edited on 7 April 2024, at 12:19
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.