Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Kevin E.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided January 3, 2008No. 27 Sept. Term 2007Published

1DissentRaker, J.

I respectfully dissent. In response to the merits of the case before this Court, in my view, jeopardy never attached in this case, and therefore, double jeopardy principles do not bar a delinquency proceeding in the matter of Kevin E. No witness was ever called before the juvenile master, no evidence was ever received, and there was no finding amounting to an acquittal. Under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Maryland common law, jeopardy never attached.1

*642Assuming, as does the majority, that a “live” delinquency petition somehow exists in this case, I turn to the merits…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Benton v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. Serfass v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  4. Breed v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  5. Downum v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API