Jump to content

Bravo-Fernandez v. United States

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Legalskeptic (talk | contribs) at 15:53, 8 August 2019 (moved footnote to end of lead sentence). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Bravo-Fernandez v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 4, 2016
Decided November 29, 2016
Full case nameJuan Bravo-Fernandez and Hector Martinez-Maldonado, Petitioners v. United States
Docket no.15–537
Citations580 U.S. ___ (more)
137 S. Ct. 352; 196 L. Ed. 2d 242
Case history
PriorUnited States v. Bravo-Fernandez, 790 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2015); cert. granted, 136 S. Ct. 1491 (2016).
Holding
The issue-preclusion component of the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the Government from retrying defendants, like petitioners, after a jury has returned irreconcilably inconsistent verdicts of conviction and acquittal and the convictions are later vacated for legal error unrelated to the inconsistency.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityGinsburg, joined by unanimous
ConcurrenceThomas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V

Bravo-Fernandez v. United States, 580 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified the application of the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause to cases in which a jury returns irreconcilable verdicts that convict a defendant on one count and acquit a defendant on another count when both counts rely upon the same ultimate fact.[1]

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.[2] Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion, stating that although he joins with the majority, the Court should reconsider the two cases that Ginsburg relied on in her argument, Ashe v. Swenson and Yeager v. United States.[3]

See also

References

  1. ^ Bravo-Fernandez v. United States, No. 15-537, 580 U.S. ___ (2016), slip. op. at 1-2.
  2. ^ Bravo-Fernandez, slip. op. at 18-19.
  3. ^ Bravo-Fernandez, slip. op. at 1-2 (Thomas, J., concurring).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bravo-Fernandez_v._United_States&oldid=909935790"