People v. Cooper
Appellate Court of Illinois
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Egan
I concur in the majority view that trial errors require a new trial. But I dissent from the majority view that the judge’s action in declaring a mistrial and the defendant’s subsequent trial did not violate the constitutional provision against double jeopardy. For that reason I would reverse the defendant’s conviction.
The rule governing the right to retry a defendant in a criminal case after a mistrial had been declared was set forth 167 years ago in United States v. Perez (1824), 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579, 6 L. Ed. 165. The Supreme Court warned:
“[T]he power ought to be used with the greatest…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States v. JornSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- United States v. PerezSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Beermart, Inc. v. The Stroh Brewery CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
- Williamson v. SwankAppellate Court of Illinois · 1971