Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. Cooper

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided March 1, 1991No. 1-88-0132Published

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

  1. United States v. JornSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. United States v. PerezSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
  3. Beermart, Inc. v. The Stroh Brewery CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
  4. Williamson v. SwankAppellate Court of Illinois · 1971

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

Powered by the Exa API