Legal Opinion
Kruelski v. Connecticut Superior Court for the Judicial District of Danbury
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided May 31, 2001No. 3:00CV1315 (RNC)PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING AND ORDER
CHATIGNY, District Judge.
Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 preventing the State of Connecticut from retrying him on a misdemeanor charge on the ground that the retrial, which has been stayed pending the outcome of this habeas litigation, is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The first trial ended following the completion of the evidence but before the jury was charged when the trial judge granted a motion for judgment of acquittal based on the statute of limitations, which is an affirmative defense under Connecticut…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Burks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Stone v. PowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Green v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Arizona v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Edward Kruelski, Jr. v. State of Connecticut Superior Court for the Judicial District of Danbury and Geographical Area 3 at DanburyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003
- Edward Kruelski, Jr. v. State of Connecticut Superior Court for the Judicial District of Danbury and Geographical Area 3 at DanburyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003