Today in Supreme Court History: April 15, 1931

4/15/1931: Stromberg v. California argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (decided April 15, 1997): statute requiring candidates for state office to submit to drug test was unreasonable search under Fourth Amendment

Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552 (decided April 15, 1980): defendant’s refusal to cooperate in investigation of related crime can be aggravating factor in sentencing for heroin sale

Vella v. Ford Motor Co., 421 U.S. 1 (decided April 15, 1975): A shipowner owes the duty of “maintenance and cure” to a seaman even if illness/injury due to his own negligence. Here the Court holds that this duty continues after he leaves the ship, until such time as a medical diagnosis is made that the incident caused a permanent (and hence no longer “curable”) injury.

Dixilyn Drilling Corp. v. Crescent Towing & Salvage Co., 372 U.S. 697 (decided April 15, 1963): in admiralty, can’t get indemnified for one’s own negligence (as stipulated in contract between barge owner and tower after bridge damaged by barge and bridge owner sued)

Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (decided April 15, 1935): counterfeiting conviction remanded for new trial where prosecutor’s cross-examination was abusive and judge did not stop it (the footnote giving part of the transcript contains an almost comical instance of the prosecutor twisting an answer into a threat against the prosecutor himself) (why a new trial? wouldn’t that be double jeopardy?)

St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. Wynne, 224 U.S. 354 (decided April 15, 1912): no Due Process violation where statute allowed double damages and attorney’s fees if a railroad refuses to reimburse within 30 days for killing livestock even though amount demanded turns out to be more than true value

United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co., 553 U.S. 1 (decided April 15, 2008): one seeking reimbursement for taxes under the Tucker Act (relating to government contracts) is bound by usual requirement and deadline as to making a pre-suit administrative claim to the IRS even though Tucker Act has separate statute of limitations provision with no pre-suit claim requirement

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (decided April 15, 1980): can’t enter a house to make an arrest without a warrant (as the Court admits, it hadn’t yet decided this issue, which is odd)

McLucas v. DeChamplain, 421 U.S. 21 (decided April 15, 1975): allowing retrial of Air Force officer to go forward despite refusal of prosecution to hand over its complete file from first trial (ironic because charge was copying classified documents and giving them to Communist contacts in Thailand)

Basham v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 372 U.S. 699 (decided April 15, 1963): reinstating New York state court verdict under federal Employers Liability Act for trainman who dropped large spring (amputating finger) when platform moved; jury credited testimony of witness who saw platform moving against testimony of railroad that platform was immovable; in dissent Harlan calls this is a run-of-the-mill case and the Court should have saved time by leaving the state appellate process alone

[SMP0328]

Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (decided April 15, 1935): counterfeiting conviction remanded for new trial where prosecutor’s cross-examination was abusive and judge did not stop it (the footnote giving part of the transcript contains an almost comical instance of the prosecutor twisting an answer into a threat against the prosecutor himself) (why a new trial? wouldn’t that be double jeopardy?)

A retrial is not double jeopardy, because the first trial was tainted and so the defendant was not truly in jeopardy.

[Krayt]

I thought the government couldn't get away with screwing things up to force a retrial, as prophylactic against doing that deliberately when it saw things weren't going so well.

[SMP0328]

Is there any evidence in Berger suggesting the prosecutor was intending to cause a mistrial? The trial resulted in a conviction, so I strongly doubt it.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

It's a hypothetical. It's a prophylactic against the possibility.

You know, the kind of stuff they teach in law school.

[SMP0328]

You know, the kind of stuff they teach in law school.

You just couldn't resist being a sarcastic jerk.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Let's say the conviction was aided by prosecutorial misconduct (probably what happened here). Thereby vacated on appeal. Retrial? Or double jeopardy?

Let's say on retrial there's another conviction, again aided by prosecutorial misconduct. Reretrial?

[Brett Bellmore]

“A retrial is not double jeopardy, because the first trial was tainted and so the defendant was not truly in jeopardy.”

A retrial after a conviction is not double jeopardy, because once you’ve already been convicted, a retrial actually allows you an opportunity to be acquitted, instead. If anything, it’s double opportunity.

It's like the guy who WON the first flip of the coin offering you best two out of three; Where's your complaint?