Legal Opinion

Marte v. Vance

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided May 10, 2012No. 11-4486-cvUnpublishedCited by 36 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SUMMARY ORDER

Eddy and Luis Marte appeal the denial of their habeas petition seeking to bar their retrial by New York State on charges of attempted robbery as violating the Double Jeopardy Clause. They submit that neither manifest necessity nor implied consent existed to justify the declaration of a prior partial mistrial on the charges at issue so as to allow retrial. While only one level of the New York courts to review the Martes’ double jeopardy challenge found retrial justified by manifest necessity, all three have found implied consent. See Marte v. Berkman, 16 N.Y.3d 874, 876, 925…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Estelle v. McGuireSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Arizona v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. People v. O'RamaNew York Court of Appeals · 1991
  4. United States v. Albert GoldsteinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1973
  5. Camden v. Circuit Court of the Second Judicial CircuitCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989

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

3Cited by36 opinions

  1. Hoffler v. BezioCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2013
  2. Burns v. Warden, ValhallaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2023
  3. Bynum v. State of New JerseyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2024
  4. Estremera Casiano v. New York State Niagara CountyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2024
  5. Falls v. ArtetaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2023

31 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