Robert Shawn Ingram v. Warden, Holman Correctional Facility

Oral argument

• Argued

  57 min recording
  Listen

Source: CourtListener oral-argument corpus (CC0).

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that presumption of vindictiveness is inapplicable in a system which gave a convicted defendant the right to a trial de novo in another court
• holding that the resentencing restraints fashioned in Pearce do not apply to harsher sentences imposed after a trial de novo in states utilizing a two-tier system of trial courts
• holding that the resentencing restraints fashioned in Pearce do not apply to harsher sentences imposed after a trial De novo in states utilizing a two-tier system of trial courts
• holding that likelihood of vindictiveness does not exist where the court imposing the increased sentence has not been required to do so by another court
• concluding that a reasonable officer would not know that he violates the First Amendment by arresting a person who refuses to identify himself during a lawful investigative stop
• noting that trial de novo represents a “completely fresh determination of [the issues]” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).