Currier v. Virginia
United States Supreme Court
138 S. Ct. 2144 (2018)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Michael Currier (plaintiff) was accused of stealing a gun safe out of a private residence and was indicted for burglary, grand larceny, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. Because the prosecution could bring up Currier’s prior offenses for the felon-in-possession charge, Currier agreed to sever the issues into two trials, with the felon-in-possession charge tried second. The three charges could have been tried in one trial with appropriately protective jury instructions. In the first trial, the jury acquitted Currier of the burglary and grand-larceny charges. Before the second trial, Currier filed a motion to either (1) prevent the second trial on double-jeopardy grounds or (2) forbid any evidence relating to the burglary and grand-larceny charges from being admitted into evidence during the felon-in-possession trial. The trial court denied Currier’s motion, and the second trial proceeded without any restrictions. Currier was convicted on the felon-in-possession charge. Currier appealed, arguing double jeopardy, but both the Virginia Court of Appeals and the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gorsuch, J.)
Concurrence (Kennedy, J.)
Dissent (Ginsburg, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.