Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Stamper v. State

Wyoming Supreme Court

Decided May 24, 1985No. 85-36Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRose, Justice

The majority recognize that the federal and state constitutions mandate review of Pete Stamper’s double jeopardy challenge prior to a second trial. Accordingly, the court grants the extraordinary writ of cer-tiorari to provide a remedy where no right of appeal exists. Instead of affording the defendant meaningful review of his claim, however, the majority rule on this relatively complex double-jeopardy question without benefit of briefing or oral argument and with what appears to me to be only a cursory analysis of controlling authority. I would have afforded the defendant and the State an…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Burks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Stamper v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Stamper v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1983

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

Powered by the Exa API