Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Price v. Vincent

Docket No.: 02-524
Certiorari Granted: Jan 10 2003
Argued: April 21, 2003
Decided: May 19, 2003

Topics:

28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus), Criminal Procedure, Habeas Corpus, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, Civil Rights Act, Double Jeopardy, Fifth Amendment, First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Title VII, adverse employment decision, criminal procedure, disparate treatment, habeas, habeas corpus, harmless error, murder, qualified immunity

PartyNames: Janette Price, Warden v. Duyonn Andre Vincent
Petitioner: Janette Price, Warden
Respondent: Duyonn Andre Vincent

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Citation: CA 6, 292 F.3d 506. QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW: 1. Whether the Michigan Supreme Court's conclusion that the trial court did notdirect a verdict of acquittal is a factual finding entitled to deference on habeas corpus review. 2. Whether Defendant Vincent was twice placed in jeopardy by the action of the trial court in first granting a motion for directed verdict on the issue of first degree murder, and shortly thereafter withdrawing its grant, where both the initial decisionand its recall occurred out of the presence of the jury.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court Docket

Janette Price, Warden
v.
Duyonn Andre Vincent
538 U.S. 634 (2003)
Question:

Is a defendant's right against double jeopardy violated when a trial judge grants a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal as to first-degree murder, but does not direct such a verdict to the jury that subsequently convicts the defendant of first-degree murder?

Price v. Vincent
ORAL ARGUMENT

April 21, 2003

Holding: reversed
Decision: Decision: 9 votes for Price, 0 vote(s) against
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)