Legal Opinion
United States ex rel. Bland v. Nenna
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 29, 1968No. Nos. 68 Civ. 340, 68 Civ. 353PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*755MEMORANDUM
FRANKEL, District Judge.
The two petitioners for habeas corpus are codefendants in a pending state indictment. They both assert the same claim, arising from the same circumstances : that the trial the State is about to commence would subject them to double jeopardy, violating the due process guaranteed them by the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, the applications are appropriate for decision in a single opinion.
I
The pertinent facts, essentially undisputed, are these: On June 24, 1966, petitioners were indicted in several counts for robbery, grand larceny, assault, and possession of a…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Fay v. NoiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- West Virginia State Board of Education v. BarnetteSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Palko v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- United States v. PerezSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Jones v. CunninghamSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- James Mizell v. The Attorney General of the State of New York and Ano.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1978
- Mizell v. Attorney General of State of NYDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1977
- United States ex rel. Bland v. NennaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1968
- Lopez ex rel. Garcia v. CurryDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1978
- James Mizell v. The Attorney General of the State of New York and Ano.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1978
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.