United States v. James L. Love

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that, for double jeopardy purposes, the ability of a juror to dissent from the verdict when polled \compels the conclusion that a verdict is not final when announced\
• “[T]he very existence of Rule 31(d) which provides for polling a jury after its verdict has been returned but before it is recorded compels the conclusion that a verdict is not final when announced.”
• mere announcement of verdict by foreman not final verdict
• mere announcement of verdict by foreman not final verdict
• acquittal announced, but non-unanimous poll led to mistrial
• acquittal announced, but non-unanimous poll led to mistrial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).