John Marshall Harlan II

Name: Hoag v. New Jersey — Opinion of the Court
Author: John Marshall Harlan II

Hoag v. New Jersey — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Hoag v. New Jersey — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by John Marshall Harlan II. It explores elements such as New Jersey, petitioner and indictment.

Quotes from Hoag v. New Jersey — Opinion of the Court (John Marshall Harlan II)

John Marshall Harlan II, Hoag v. New Jersey — Opinion of the Court

“ But even if it was constitutionally permissible for New Jersey to punish petitioner for each of the four robberies as separate offenses, it does not necessarily follow that the State was free to prosecute him for each robbery at a different trial. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Marshall Harlan II, Hoag v. New Jersey — Opinion of the Court

“ The State called five witnesses: the three victims named in the indictment, and two other persons, Dottino and Yager. Dottino and Yager were also victims of the robbery, but they were not named in the indictment. All the witnesses, after stating that they were in Gay's Tavern on September 20, testified to the elements of a robbery as defined in the New Jersey statute: [1] that they were put in fear and that property was taken from their persons. The petitioner, who claimed that he was not at the tavern on the fateful day and testified to an alibi, was the sole witness for the defense. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Marshall Harlan II, Hoag v. New Jersey — Opinion of the Court

“ Petitioner further contends that his conviction was constitutionally barred by 'collateral estoppel.' His position is that because the sole disputed issue in the earlier trial related to his identification as a participant in the Gay's Tavern robberies, the verdict of acquittal there must necessarily be taken as having resolved that issue in his favor. The doctrine of collateral estoppel, so the argument runs, is grounded in considerations of basic fairness to litigants, and thus for a State to decline to apply the rule in favor of a criminal defendant deprives him of due process. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Marshall Harlan II, Hoag v. New Jersey — Opinion of the Court

“ Certainly this Court has never so held. However, we need not decide that question, for in this case, New Jersey both recognized the rule of collateral estoppel and considered its applicability to the facts of this case. The state court simply ruled that petitioner's previous acquittal did not give rise to such an estoppel because 'the trial of the first three indictments involved several questions, not just (petitioner's) identity, and there is no way of knowing upon which question the jury's verdict turned.' 21 N.J. at page 505, 122 A.2d at page 632. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Marshall Harlan II, Hoag v. New Jersey — Opinion of the Court

“ At the outset it should be made clear that petitioner has not been twice put in jeopardy for the same crime. The New Jersey courts, in rejecting his claim that conviction for robbing Yager violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the State Constitution, [2] have construed the New Jersey statute as making each of the four robberies, though taking place on the same occasion, a separate offense. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Marshall Harlan II, Hoag v. New Jersey — Opinion of the Court

“ These were tried together, at petitioner's first trial, on May 26 and 27, 1952. Following his acquittal petitioner was returned to New York to complete his sentence, and he was in a New York prison on July 17, 1952, when the Bergen County grand jury returned the indictment charging him with the robbery of Yager. New Jersey reacquired petitioner by extradition on May 11, 1954. The second trial was held on October 18, 1954, at the next term of the Bergen County Court, which was not in session for criminal trials during the summer months. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Marshall Harlan II, Hoag v. New Jersey — Opinion of the Court

“ Commonwealth v. Evans, 101 Mass. 25; United States v. Oppenheimer, 242 U.S. 85, 37 S.Ct. 68, 61 L.Ed. 161; Sealfon v. United States, 332 U.S. 575, 68 § .Ct. 237, 92 L.Ed. 180; cf. Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 335, 77 S.Ct. 1064, 1085, 1 L.Ed.2d 1356.
Despite its wide employment, we entertain grave doubts whether collaterial estoppel can be regarded as a constitutional requirement. ”

John Marshall Harlan II

Summary

Quotes from Hoag v. New Jersey — Opinion of the Court (John Marshall Harlan II)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature