Swisher v. Brady

438 U.S. 204 (1978)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Swisher v. Brady

United States Supreme Court
438 U.S. 204 (1978)

Facts

The Maryland Appellate Court implemented a new rule (the juvenile-court rule) concerning the use of masters in juvenile-court proceedings. Masters were officials appointed by juvenile-court judges and were essential to Maryland’s juvenile-court caseload management. Masters presided over hearings and proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and dispositions to juvenile-court judges, who could adopt or reject the masters’ proposals. State attorneys who appeared in a prosecutorial role (state’s attorneys) (defendants) could file exceptions, which were similar to appeals, to a master’s proposal, but the juvenile-court judge did not review the matter de novo. Instead, the judge considered the record that had been established before the master, supplemented by any evidence agreed upon by the juvenile and the state’s attorney. Juveniles who were parties to proceedings in which the state’s attorney filed exceptions to a master’s proposal (the juveniles) (plaintiffs) formed a class and sued the state’s attorneys in federal district court, seeking declaratory relief and an injunction to bar the state’s attorneys from filing exceptions to the masters’ proposals. The juveniles argued that the hearing before the master placed them in jeopardy and the juvenile-court judge’s review impermissibly put them in jeopardy a second time, violating the Double Jeopardy Clause (DJC). The federal district court found for the juveniles and enjoined the state’s attorneys from filing exceptions to certain proposals issued by masters. The United States Supreme Court reviewed the matter.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Burger, C.J.)

Dissent (Marshall, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership