Burks V. United States

50 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Douglas
  874 F.2d 1145· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-21 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the evidence presented at the first trial was sufficient to support the defendants' convictions, and therefore, their retrial did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court also found sufficient evidence presented at the second trial to support the conv
• United States v. Kimberlin
  805 F.2d 210· 7th Cir.· 1986-10-22 ·cited 46×
  The admission of hypnotically induced testimony does not require reversal, but courts should establish standards for its admissibility.
• Howie Ray Robinson v. Wade
  686 F.2d 298· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-20 ·cited 40×
  The Court held that the defendant's reprosecution was not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause, as the prosecutor's conduct, while improper, did not demonstrate an intent to provoke a mistrial, and the court reporter's negligence in losing a transcript did not trigger double jeop
• United States v. Sneed
  705 F.2d 745· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-23 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a prior conviction reversed on grounds other than evidentiary insufficiency does not preclude a double jeopardy claim if the evidence at the first trial was legally insufficient.
• United States v. United States Gypsum Co.
  600 F.2d 414· 3d Cir.· 1979-05-29 ·cited 34×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the conspiracy continued into the statutory period, and therefore, the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal was affirmed.
• United States v. Leon
  739 F.2d 885· 3d Cir.· 1984-07-12 ·cited 30×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's guilty verdicts for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, affirming the convictions.
• Delk v. Atkinson
  665 F.2d 90· 6th Cir.· 1981-11-25 ·cited 24×
  A federal court may grant habeas corpus relief to prevent retrial if a state appellate court, despite finding evidence sufficient, reversed a conviction on other grounds, and the defendant raises a double jeopardy claim based on insufficiency.
• Gully v. Kunzman
  592 F.2d 283· 6th Cir.· 1979-01-18 ·cited 24×
  The Court held that petitioners are not entitled to pre-trial habeas corpus relief on double jeopardy grounds because the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit exposing them to the risk of a death sentence on retrial, even if the death penalty was not sought in the first trial
• United States v. Quinn
  901 F.2d 522· 6th Cir.· 1990-04-24 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the admission of a witness's prior testimony without a sufficient showing of unavailability violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, and this error was not harmless.
• Jones v. Thigpen
  741 F.2d 805· 5th Cir.· 1984-09-17 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars the State from seeking the death penalty again because the evidence presented at the first trial was legally insufficient to support a finding that the defendant killed or intended to kill the victim, as required by Enmund v. Fl
• United States v. Marsden W. Miller, Jr.
  952 F.2d 866· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-23 ·cited 22×
  Retrial is not barred by double jeopardy when prior convictions were reversed due to errors in indictment or jury instructions, not insufficient evidence. The government's cross-appeal is dismissed for failure to timely file a required certificate.
• United States v. Bodey
  607 F.2d 265· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause, as interpreted in Burks v. United States, bars a second trial when the evidence presented at the first trial was legally insufficient to support a conviction, even if the first trial resulted in a hung jury.
• United States v. Gennaro J. Orrico
  599 F.2d 113· 6th Cir.· 1979-05-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that insufficient evidence was presented to sustain the conviction for causing the transportation of fraudulent checks in interstate commerce.
• Linam v. Griffin
  685 F.2d 369· 10th Cir.· 1982-08-09 ·cited 17×
  The court affirmed the district court's decision, with the concurring opinion agreeing with the result but disagreeing with one of the majority's rationales.
• Young v. Kemp
  760 F.2d 1097· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-03 ·cited 16×
  The Double Jeopardy Clause, as interpreted by Burks and Bullington, prevents the state from seeking the death penalty on retrial when a prior federal habeas court found insufficient evidence to support the aggravating factors for the death sentence.
• United States v. Knop
  701 F.2d 670· 7th Cir.· 1983-03-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the banks were federally insured at the time the false statements were made, an essential element of the offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1014.
• United States v. McQUILKIN
  673 F.2d 681· 3d Cir.· 1982-03-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to hear an intermediate appeal on a double jeopardy claim based on the insufficiency of evidence from a prior trial, and that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the convictions.
• Beverly v. Warden Mr. Charlie Jones & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Ala.
  854 F.2d 412· 11th Cir.· 1988-09-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a retrial on a lesser included offense is permissible after a conviction on a greater offense is reversed for insufficient evidence, and that federal courts must defer to state court interpretations of state statutes in habeas proceedings.
• United States v. Porter
  807 F.2d 21· 1st Cir.· 1986-12-18 ·cited 14×
  A defendant cannot raise a double jeopardy claim based on alleged insufficiency of evidence from a first trial if the conviction was reversed due to trial error, not evidentiary insufficiency.
• Tapp v. Lucas
  658 F.2d 383· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-07 ·cited 14×
  A state court's explanation that a prior reversal was based on 'trial error' rather than insufficient evidence permits retrial, and resentencing for manslaughter on a murder conviction is permissible if the risk of jury compromise is absent.
• United States v. Sarmiento-Perez
  667 F.2d 1239· 5th Cir.· 1982-02-19 ·cited 13×
  The Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit retrial when a conviction is reversed due to trial error, such as the admission of inadmissible evidence.
• Vogel v. Commonwealth OF Pa.
  790 F.2d 368· 3d Cir.· 1986-05-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the second trial's conviction, reversed due to insufficient evidence of sanity under the law at the time, barred retrial under the Double Jeopardy Clause, and that Burks v. United States applies retroactively.
• Evans v. Court OF Common Pleas
  959 F.2d 1227· 3d Cir.· 1992-03-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a federal court may not grant habeas corpus relief before a state retrial when the prior conviction was reversed for trial error, as double jeopardy does not bar such a retrial. The court also found that the petitioner had adequately exhausted her federal due
• United States v. Runnels
  877 F.2d 481· 6th Cir.· 1989-06-13 ·cited 10×
  The en banc court held that the prosecution was based solely on the now-invalidated intangible rights theory of mail fraud, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Robert D.H. Richardson
  702 F.2d 1079· D.C. Cir.· 1983-03-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a criminal defendant cannot appeal a trial court's ruling on the sufficiency of evidence or a related double jeopardy claim until after a final judgment is entered, as these issues do not fall within the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule.
• Lydon v. Justices OF the Boston Mun. Court
  698 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1982-12-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a defendant's election of a two-tier trial system does not constitute a waiver of the right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented at the first-tier trial.
• United States v. Briggs
  920 F.2d 287· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-04 ·cited 8×
  A guilty plea to bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 requires a factual basis demonstrating the defendant defrauded a financial institution or obtained funds by false pretenses; a plea lacking such basis can be vacated, and the defendant may be allowed to plead anew.
• Jones v. Thigpen
  788 F.2d 1101· 5th Cir.· 1986-05-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit a state from enacting a capital murder crime without an intent-to-kill element, the death sentence requires a showing that the defendant killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill, and that ineffective assistanc
• Carter v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  691 F.2d 777· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' reversal of Carter's conviction was based on evidentiary insufficiency, not weight, thus triggering the double jeopardy bar under Burks v. United States and Greene v. Massey, as clarified by Tibbs v. Florida.
• United States v. Shackelford
  677 F.2d 422· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial judge committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of abandonment, even though the evidence supporting the defense was weak.
• Dirk Webster v. Duckworth
  767 F.2d 1206· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-11 ·cited 7×
  The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment bars retrial when a conviction is reversed for insufficient evidence, even if the insufficiency was caused by trial error that prejudiced the prosecution.
• Freer v. Dugger
  935 F.2d 213· 11th Cir.· 1991-07-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a trial judge's determination that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict, even if framed as a grant of a new trial to allow for appeal, constitutes an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes, barring retrial.
• United States v. Bowline
  593 F.2d 944· 10th Cir.· 1979-03-08 ·cited 6×
  The Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial of defendants on a conspiracy count when the trial court dismisses the count based on the insufficiency of the government's evidence presented during trial.
• Wang v. Withworth
  811 F.2d 952· 6th Cir.· 1987-02-11 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge would deny the writ of habeas corpus, finding that the trial judge's declaration of a mistrial due to prejudice, rather than insufficient evidence, does not bar retrial under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• Deloney v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  713 F.2d 1080· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant's reindictment on more serious charges after his guilty plea was withdrawn did not constitute prosecutorial vindictiveness because the charges were not more severe than those in the original indictment, and his retrial was not barred by double je
• Arlester E. Scott v. Jones
  862 F.2d 1311· 8th Cir.· 1988-12-07 ·cited 3×
  The Court of Appeals held that the district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief, as the prior state appellate court decision did not find the evidence legally insufficient to support the initial conviction, thus the double jeopardy clause did not bar a retrial.
• Satter v. Leapley
  977 F.2d 1259· 8th Cir.· 1992-10-19 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas petition, holding that the appellant procedurally defaulted his Double Jeopardy claim by abandoning the sufficiency of evidence issue in state post-conviction proceedings.
• Bohlen v. Caspari
  979 F.2d 109· 8th Cir.· 1992-10-16 ·cited 2×
  The Double Jeopardy Clause applies to Missouri's persistent offender sentencing proceedings, barring a second enhancement hearing after the state failed to prove prior convictions in the first instance.
• United States v. Lawrence
  889 F.2d 1187· 1st Cir.· 1989-11-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's confession, though initially deemed involuntary by the trial court, was not in fact involuntary and was therefore admissible for rebuttal purposes, and that the sentencing guidelines were applied correctly.
• Duffel v. Dutton
  785 F.2d 131· 6th Cir.· 1986-03-05 ·cited 2×
  The Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit a second trial for habitual criminal status when the first sentence was vacated due to a trial court's erroneous exclusion of evidence that would have cured the insufficiency. Additionally, Tennessee's habitual criminal statutes do not
• United States v. Civella
  688 F.2d 575· 8th Cir.· 1982-09-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the double jeopardy clause does not bar retrial after a mistrial was declared due to inadmissible evidence, especially when the mistrial was not intended to provoke the defendant.
• United States v. Kincaid
  964 F.2d 325· 4th Cir.· 1992-05-07
  The court held that applying the sentence enhancement for committing an offense while on release did not violate due process or double jeopardy, and adequate notice was given. However, the district court erred by denying the government an opportunity to present evidence on the am
• Singer v. Court OF Common Pleas
  879 F.2d 1203· 3d Cir.· 1989-07-19
  The court held that the warrantless entry into Singer's home was not justified by exigent circumstances, rendering the aggravated assault conviction unconstitutional. It also held that Singer was denied effective assistance of counsel for the simple assault charges.
• Haney v. Buford R. Burgess
  799 F.2d 661· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-05
  A criminal conviction reversed solely due to improper venue does not bar retrial under the Double Jeopardy Clause, as venue is a procedural matter distinct from the sufficiency of evidence on the merits of the charge.
• Dickenson v. Israel
  644 F.2d 308· 7th Cir.· 1981-03-11
  The Double Jeopardy Clause was not violated when a state appellate court vacated a conviction for insufficient evidence but affirmed a conviction for a lesser included offense.