A. W. Lund Co. v. Ray

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “the bar of double jeopardy [did] not apply” because there was no evidence or allegation that the State acted willfully “and no evidence of prosecutorial provocation or other willful misconduct”
• noting that, under Brady, “suppression by 21 the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution”
• the Court instructing that on re-trial, a detective could testify about the wife's prior consistent statement under N.J.R.E. 803(a)(2), to rebut an express charge of recent fabrication about the wife's testimony regarding her husband's dying declaration
• “[T]he bar of double jeopardy is limited to ‘those cases in which the conduct giving rise to the successful motion for a mistrial was intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial .’” (quoting Kennedy, 456 U.S. at 679)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).