Legal Opinion

Arizona v. Washington

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided February 21, 1978No. 76-1168PublishedCited by 2,021 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Stevens

An Arizona trial judge granted the prosecutor’s motion for a mistrial predicated on improper and prejudicial comment during defense counsel’s opening statement. In a subsequent habeas corpus proceeding, a Federal District Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause protected the defendant from another trial. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.1 The questions presented are whether the record reflects the kind of “necessity” for the mistrial ruling that will avoid a valid plea of double jeopardy, and if so, whether the plea must nevertheless be allowed because the Arizona trial…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Benton v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Green v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  4. Bishop v. WoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  5. Cupp v. NaughtenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973

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

3Cited by2,021 opinions

  1. Tibbs v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. United States v. DixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  3. Renico v. LettSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
  4. Oregon v. KennedySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  5. United States v. ScottSupreme Court of the United States · 1978

2,016 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