Grady v. Corbin

Grady v. Corbin

Argued March 21, 1990
Decided May 29, 1990
Full case name William V. Grady, District Attorney of Dutchess County v. Thomas J. Corbin
Citations

495 U.S. 508 (more)

110 S.Ct. 2084
Prior history Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York
Holding
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.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Case opinions
Majority Brennan, joined by White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens
Dissent O'Connor
Dissent Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, Kennedy
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V
Overruled by
United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993)

Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding 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."[1]

Background

In the fall of 1987, Thomas Corbin was driving under the influence as he drove his automobile across the center line of a New York highway and collided with two oncoming vehicles. Brenda Dirago, the driver of the second vehicle, died in this accident while her husband was seriously injured. Later that same day, Corbin was charged with DUI and pleaded guilty.

Opinion of the Court

In an opinion by Justice Brennan, the Supreme Court ruled that to subsequently try him for homicide would constitute double jeopardy.[2]

Aftermath

Grady was only valid law for three years. It was overturned by United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993), which rejected the same conduct test in favor of the longstanding same element test. The same element test had been the law since Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932).

See also

References

  1. ↑ "GRADY V. CORBIN, 495 U. S. 508 (1990)". Justia. Retrieved 2008-08-30.
  2. ↑ Foderaro, Lisa W. (1990-06-02). "Double-Jeopardy Ruling Compounds Grief". New York Times.

Further reading

 
After acquittal
  • United States v. Randenbush (1834)
  • Ball v. United States (1896)
  • Burton v. United States (1906)
  • Helvering v. Mitchell (1938)
  • Green v. United States (1957)
  • Fong Foo v. United States (1962)
  • United States v. Tateo (1964)
  • Ashe v. Swenson (1970)
  • Wilson v. United States (1975)
  • Serfass v. United States (1975)
  • United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co. (1977)
  • Burks v. United States (1978)
  • Crist v. Bretz (1978)
  • Sanabria v. United States (1978)
  • United States v. Scott (1978)
  • Bullington v. Missouri (1981)
  • Tibbs v. Florida (1982)
  • Arizona v. Rumsey (1984)
  • Poland v. Arizona (1986)
  • Witte v. United States (1995)
  • Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania (2003)
  • Smith v. Massachusetts (2005)
  • Yeager v. United States (2009)
After conviction
After mistrial
Multiple punishment
  • Ex parte Lange (1873)
  • Blockburger v. United States (1932)
  • Whalen v. United States (1980)
  • Missouri v. Hunter (1983)
  • Rutledge v. United States (1996)
Dual sovereignty doctrine
Other


This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 6/16/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.