Richardson v. United States

The Court held that two separate convictions under both 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(a)(i) and § 924(j) for a single act was not intended by Congress.

The Court held that "Not guilty by reason of insanity" is an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes notwithstanding any inconsistency with the jury's other verdicts.

The Court held that the double jeopardy clause does not bar successive prosecutions of distinct offenses arising from a single act, even if a single sovereign prosecutes them.

The Court affirmed the lower court, holding that a defendant prosecuted under both state and federal law for being a felon in possession of a gun was not subject to double jeopardy, because there was insufficient cause to overturn the separate sovereigns doctrine.· AI-written

The court held that if a criminal defendant consents to sever their case into multiple trials, they waive issue preclusion in the subsequent trials.

In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that the government may re-try criminal defendants after a jury returns irreconcilable verdicts when the conviction is later vacated because of a procedural error that is unrelated to the inconsistency.

The Court, in a criminal case asking whether Puerto Rico and the federal government are separate sovereigns under the Double Jeopardy Clause, affirmed that the Clause bars both from successively prosecuting the same person for the same conduct under equivalent criminal laws.· AI-written

The Court held that if a person accused of a crime receives a directed acquittal, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a second trial of that person for the same crime, even if the person was acquitted in error.

The Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial of counts that a jury had previously unanimously voted to acquit on, when a mistrial is declared after the jury deadlocked on a lesser included offense.

The Court held that, even when a jury's acquittals on some counts seem inconsistent with its failure to return a verdict on other counts, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars the government from relitigating facts necessarily decided by the acquittals.· AI-written

The court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar a courts from conducting a full hearing on a convicted defendant's mental capacity to determine if they are eligible for the death penalty.

The court held that submitting a count to the jury after the judge has granted a mid-trial acquittal subjects a defendant to further factfinding proceedings going to guilt or innocence and violates the Double Jeopardy Clause.

The court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude retrial on a prior conviction allegation in noncapital sentencing proceedings.

The court held that the government may levy a remedial civil penalty after a criminal punishment without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause's prohibition on multiple punishments.

The court held that in rem civil forfeitures are not "punishment" for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.

In a double jeopardy case, the Court overruled an earlier decision, revived the traditional Blockburger standard, and held that subsequent convictions for offenses containing the same elements violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.· AI-written

The Court held that "a…offense and a conspiracy to commit that offense are not the same offense for double jeopardy purposes."

The Court held that that: "the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a subsequent prosecution if, to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, the government will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted."

The Court held that, if a criminal defendant received a sentence after a guilty plea but withdrew that plea and was convicted at trial, the judge may hand down a more severe sentence.

The court held that a civil sanction is criminal punishment and can activate the Double Jeopardy Clause if it serves the traditional goals of punishment: retribution or deterrence.

The Court ruled that, under the dual sovereignty doctrine, the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause did not bar one state from prosecuting and punishing someone already convicted and sentenced for the same act in another state.· AI-written

The court held that a gun owner's acquittal on criminal charges involving firearms does not preclude a subsequent in rem forfeiture proceeding against those firearms when that subsequent proceeding is civil rather than criminal.

In a case about when a defendant who moved for a mistrial can be retried, the Court ruled that double jeopardy bars retrial only where the prosecution intended to provoke a mistrial, not for mere harassment or overreaching.· AI-written

The Court held that a provision of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 letting the federal government appeal certain criminal sentences after they are imposed did not violate the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause.· AI-written

The court held that jeopardy attaches in a jury trial when the jury is empaneled and sworn because the defendant has an interest in retaining a chosen jury.

The Court held that when an appellate court reverses a conviction for insufficient evidence, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a second prosecution, so the only just remedy is to order an acquittal rather than allow a new trial.· AI-written

The Court held the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the federal prosecution of a Native American (Indian) who has already been prosecuted by the tribe.

The Supreme Court of the United States determined that the U.S. Const., Amend. V protection against double jeopardy did not prevent a retrial of a defendant, who had previously requested a mistrial.

The court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit an appeal by the government of a pretrial dismissal because the criminal defendant has yet not been put in jeopardy by a trial.

The Court held that where a trial judge abruptly declared a mistrial to keep a prosecution witness from incriminating himself, the Double Jeopardy Clause barred a second trial of the defendant.· AI-written

The Court held that "when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit."

The Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause protects defendants from successive prosecutions by states and municipalities for offenses based on the same criminal conduct.

In a double jeopardy case, the Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause applies to the states, and in doing so expressly overruled Palko v. Connecticut.· AI-written

In a case about increased sentences after a new trial, the Court ruled that due process forbids judicial vindictiveness, requires full credit for time served, and requires a judge imposing a greater sentence on retrial to state reasons.· AI-written

The court held that acquittals in criminal cases are final even if issued by mistake.

The Court held that the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar a federal prosecution for a conspiracy that had already resulted in a state court conviction under state law.· AI-written

The Court held that coordination between federal and state officials did not implicate double jeopardy, and that a defendant acquitted of a federal crime could be convicted of a state crime on the same evidence without violating due process.· AI-written

The Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 241, which protects citizens' Fourteenth Amendment rights from individuals sworn to uphold laws, may be applied only to federal cases and is not available to state governments.· AI-written