Randolph v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
1DissentChapel, Judge
T 1 I dissent based on the majority's resolution of Propositions I and IV. In Proposition I, the majority opinion correctly acknowledges that in cases dating back to Statehood, this Court has consistently held that when a eriminal jury trial has been properly commenced, a mid-trial mistrial cannot be granted without the defendant's consent, except in cases of "manifest necessity." 1 The United States Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly recognized that the Constitutional protection against "Double Jeopardy" includes the right not be "twice put in jeopardy" for the same offense,…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Melendez-Diaz v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- United States v. PerezSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Barber v. PageSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- In Re McNaughtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1909
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.