Winn v. Scarborough

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing “the right of society to have its trial processes applied fully and fairly in the due administration of the criminal law”
• explaining that the difference in language between the federal and state constitutional provisions was “without distinction in meaning” in light of the “historical evolution and treatment” of the protections against double jeopardy in our state
• observing that if a court declares a mistrial “to safeguard the right of the defendant to a full and fair trial . . . there is even less basis for a claim of trespass upon the privilege against double jeopardy ”
• “[A]ppellate reluctance to interfere with a sua sponte declaration of a mistrial should be even more pronounced where it is 26 plain that a primary motive for the trial judge’s course was solicitude for the defendant’s interests.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).