Illinois v. Somerville
Supreme Court of the United States
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Rehnquist
We must here decide whether declaration of a mistrial over the defendant’s objection, because the trial court concluded that the indictment was insufficient to charge a crime, necessarily prevents a State from subsequently trying the defendant under a valid indictment. We hold that the mistrial met the “manifest necessity” requirement of our cases, since the trial court could reasonably have concluded that the “ends of public justice” would be defeated by having allowed the trial to continue. Therefore, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States through…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Benton v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- United States v. JornSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- United States v. PerezSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Wade v. HunterSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- United States v. BallSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1,287 opinions
- Arizona v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Renico v. LettSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Oregon v. KennedySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- United States v. ScottSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- United States v. DiFrancescoSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
1,282 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.