Legal Opinion

State v. Allen

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided October 28, 2011No. 76, Sept. Term, 2010PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBarbera, J.

A defendant in a criminal proceeding may invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel to preclude the State from trying an ultimate fact found in favor of the defendant at a prior trial. Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 445, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970). This defensive use of collateral estoppel derives from the protection provided a criminal defendant under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Id. We are asked in the case at bar to consider whether collateral estoppel may be applied against a criminal defendant to foreclose the jury from finding for itself all of the…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. Ashe v. SwensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Sandstrom v. MontanaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  4. Estelle v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  5. Mattox v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Wolfe, M.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  2. State v. HewinsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2014
  3. State v. HuffineMontana Supreme Court · 2018
  4. Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Wolfe, M.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2016

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

Powered by the Exa API