United States v. Dinitz
United States Supreme Court
424 U.S. 600 (1976)
Facts
Nathan Dinitz (defendant) was tried on drug charges. Dinitz’s new attorney, Maurice Wagner, was admitted pro hac vice. Wagner was warned repeatedly for making improper opening statements. In response, the judge said that the case could be stayed while a higher court considered Wagner’s expulsion, Dinitz could use his old attorney, or a mistrial could be declared. Dinitz moved for a mistrial. The prosecution did not object, and the judge granted the motion. Before retrial, Dinitz moved to dismiss claiming that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred prosecution. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the court found that the judge had essentially forced Dinitz to move for a mistrial and proceeded as if the mistrial had been declared over Dinitz’s objections. The appellate court determined there was no manifest necessity for Wagner’s expulsion and the Double Jeopardy Clause barred retrial. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stewart, J.)
Concurrence (Burger, C.J.)
Dissent (Brennan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 707,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 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.
