Court Opinion

ID: 5085332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-01 13:48:22.427552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:08.259264
License: Public Domain

By its pleading through a specialized bill of particulars practice, the prosecution in Grady v. Corbin,495 U.S. 508, 510, 110 S.Ct. 2084, 2087, 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), locked itself into a double jeopardy holding. Such is not the case presented here. The majority speculates as to what might happen in a trial for driving while intoxicated and, based upon their sighting of gremlins, bars the State through double jeopardy.
There cannot be double jeopardy until there has been jeopardy. The reasoning of the majority escapes me. I dissent.
WHITE, J., joins this dissent.