Summary

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. United States v. Oppenheimer — Opinion of the Court

Of course, the quashing of a bad indictment is no bar to a prosecution upon a good one, but a judgment for the defendant upon the ground that the prosecution is barred goes to his liability as matter of substantive law, and one judgment that he is free as matter of substantive law is as good as another. A plea of the statute of limitations is a plea to the merits (United States v. Barber, 219 U.S. 72, 78, 55 L. ed. 99, 101, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 209) , and however the issue was raised in the former case, after judgment upon it, it could not be reopened in a later prosecution.
Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. United States v. Oppenheimer — Opinion of the Court

Upon the merits the proposition of the government is that the doctrine of res judicata does not exist for criminal cases except in the modified form of the 5th Amendment, that a person shall not be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; and the conclusion is drawn that a decision upon a plea in bar cannot prevent a second trial when the defendant never has been in jeopardy in the sense of being before a jury upon the facts of the offense charged.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature