Ashe v. Swenson
United States Supreme Court
397 U.S. 436, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970)
- Written by Sarah Venti, JD
Facts
Bob Ashe (defendant) was charged under state law with six separate offenses for robbing six men during a poker game. At his trial for robbing one of the men, Knight, the jury found Ashe not guilty due to insufficient evidence. However, there was no dispute that a robbery had occurred and that Knight was a victim of the robbery. Six weeks later, Ashe was on trial again for the robbery of another poker player. Citing his prior acquittal, Ashe filed a motion to dismiss. The motion was overruled. At the second trial, the prosecution was able to adjust its case based on the weaknesses that emerged in the first trial. For example, the state’s witnesses were more certain of their eyewitness identifications, testifying to the sound of Ashe’s voice and his mannerisms. Also, one witness who had failed to give a convincing identification was not called to testify. Ashe was convicted by a jury, and the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. Ashe filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court, asserting that his second trial violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The district court denied Ashe's petition, and the appellate court affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stewart, J.)
Dissent (Burger, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
