Legal Opinion

State v. Kruelski

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided August 3, 1999No. SC 16029PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CALLAHAN, C. J.

The sole issue in this certified

appeal is whether the state is barred by the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment to the United States constitution1 from retrying a defendant who is charged with a crime and, after a jury is empaneled and *3sworn,2 acquitted on a statute of limitations defense. We conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the federal constitution permits a second trial.

The following undisputed facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. On August 22, 1994, an arrest warrant was issued charging the defendant, Edward J.…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Burks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Benton v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. United States v. JornSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  4. Arizona v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  5. United States v. ScottSupreme Court of the United States · 1978

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
  2. Edward Kruelski, Jr. v. State of Connecticut Superior Court for the Judicial District of Danbury and Geographical Area 3 at DanburyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003
  3. State v. BrunoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
  4. Kendall v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2012
  5. State v. JIMENEZ-JARAMILLConnecticut Appellate Court · 2012

4 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