Commonwealth v. Bradley
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
CAVANAUGH, Judge:
The issue raised in this appeal is whether the circumstances surrounding the trial judge’s sua sponte declaration of a mistrial reached the level of manifest necessity. Appellants argue that manifest necessity was not shown and that retrial of the appellants is therefore barred by the doctrine of double jeopardy. We agree, and therefore order that the appellants be discharged.
The appellants, prison guards at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, were charged with various offenses arising out of an incident during which an inmate was severely beaten. The case was…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- United States v. JornSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Arizona v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- United States v. PerezSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Downum v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Commonwealth v. BoldenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Commonwealth v. McCordSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Commonwealth v. BalogSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
- Commonwealth v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- Commonwealth v. HattenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Commonwealth v. RiveraSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.