United States v. Josef Perez

Decision Date17 March 1824
Citation9 Wheat. 579,22 U.S. 579,6 L.Ed. 165
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Justice STORY delivered the opinion of the Court.

This cause comes up from the Circuit Court for the southern district of New-York, upon a certificate of division in the opinions of the Judges of that Court. The prisoner, Josef Perez, was put upon trial for a capital offence, and the jury, being unable to agree, were discharged by the Court from giving any verdict upon the indictment, without the consent of the prisoner, or of the Attorney for the United States. The prisoner's counsel, thereupon, claimed his discharge as of right, under these circumstances; and this forms the point upon which the Judges were divided. The question, therefore, arises, whether the discharge of the jury by the Court from giving any verdict upon the indictment, with which they were charged, without the consent of the prisoner, is a bar to any future trial for the same offence. If it be, then he is entitled to be discharged from custody; if not, then he ought to be held in imprisonment until such trial can be had. We are of opinion, that the facts constitute no legal bar to a future trial. The prisoner has not been convicted or acquitted, and may again be put upon his defence. We think, that in all cases of this nature, the law has invested Courts of justice with the authority to discharge a jury from giving any verdict, whenever, in their opinion, taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity for the act, or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated. They are to exercise a sound discretion on the subject; and it is impossible to define all the circumstances, which would render it proper to interfere. To be sure, the power ought to be used with the greatest caution, under urgent circumstances, and for very plain and obvious causes; and, in capital cases especially, Courts should be extremely careful how they interfere with any of the chances of life, in favour of the prisoner. But, after all, they have the right to order the discharge; and the security which the public have for the faithful, sound, and conscientious exercise of this discretion, rests, in this, as in other cases, upon the responsibility of the Judges, under their oaths of office. We are aware that there is some diversity of opinion and practice on this subject, in the American Courts; but, after weighing the question with due deliberation, we are of opinion,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1488 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Washington
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • 1 Marzo 2002
    ...Court's test, the mistrial will bar retrial unless there was a "manifest necessity" for the mistrial. United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579, 580, 6 L.Ed. 165 (1824); see also Allen, 252 Va. at 109, 472 S.E.2d at In the present case, it is undisputed that the first jury was sworn an......
  • State v. Tate
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 22 Mayo 2001
    ...in the context of a declaration of a mistrial over a defendant's objection, the seminal decision is United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579, 6 L. Ed. 165 (1824). That case enjoys continued vitality. See Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 506, 98 S. Ct. 824, 54 L. Ed. 2d 717 (1978);......
  • Stone v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 1 Junio 1982
    ...necessity required it. (Arizona v. Washington (1978) 434 U.S. 497, 503-505, 98 S.Ct. 824, 829-830, 54 L.Ed.2d 717; United States v. Perez (1824) 22 U.S. 579, 580, 6 L.Ed. 165; § 1140; Larios v. Superior Court, supra, 24 Cal.3d 324, 329, 155 Cal.Rptr. 374, 594 P.2d 491; People v. Rojas (1975......
  • State v. Felton
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 27 Enero 1992
    ...necessity requiring the declaration of a mistrial. State v. Odom, 316 N.C. at 310, 341 S.E.2d at 334; see also United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579, 6 L.Ed. 165 (1824). Similarly, under our statutes a court may declare a mistrial where "[i]t appears there is no reasonable probabil......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Military's Dilution of Double Jeopardy: Why United States v. Easton Should Be Overturned
    • United States
    • Military Law Review No. 219, March 2014
    • 1 Marzo 2014
    ...1824 to measure whether a retrial is justified due to unique or unforeseeable circumstances, such as a mistrial. United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. 579, 580 (1824). 10 Easton , 71 M.J. at 174. 178 MILITARY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 219 follow the Supreme Court’s holding in Crist that jeopardy attaches ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT