justices
boston
municipal
lydon
argued
december
decided
april
massachusetts
law
defendant
charged
certain
minor
crimes
boston
municipal
may
elect
bench
trial
jury
trial
chooses
jury
trial
convicted
normal
appellate
process
open
chooses
bench
trial
dissatisfied
results
absolute
right
trial
de
novo
jury
need
allege
error
bench
trial
obtain
de
novo
review
however
right
appellate
review
bench
trial
conviction
respondent
elected
undergo
bench
trial
charge
knowing
possession
implements
designed
breaking
automobile
steal
property
convicted
sentenced
jail
term
trial
judge
rejected
claim
prosecution
introduced
evidence
intent
steal
respondent
requested
de
novo
jury
trial
released
personal
recognizance
pending
retrial
jury
trial
commenced
respondent
moved
dismiss
charge
ground
evidence
intent
presented
bench
trial
thus
retrial
barred
burks
held
double
jeopardy
clause
bars
second
trial
reviewing
reverses
conviction
ground
evidence
presented
first
trial
legally
insufficient
motion
dismiss
denied
respondent
sought
relief
massachusetts
judicial
ultimately
held
burks
inapplicable
appellate
ruled
evidence
insufficient
respondent
bench
trial
massachusetts
also
ruled
trial
de
novo
without
determination
sufficiency
evidence
bench
trial
violate
double
jeopardy
clause
respondent
sought
habeas
corpus
relief
federal
district
held
respondent
custody
purposes
exhausted
state
remedies
finding
respondent
merits
concluded
burks
second
trial
foreclosed
evidence
respondent
bench
trial
insufficient
insufficient
evidence
intent
bench
trial
support
respondent
conviction
appeals
affirmed
held
district
jurisdiction
entertain
respondent
habeas
corpus
action
pp
purposes
federal
habeas
corpus
statutes
respondent
custody
even
though
conviction
vacated
applied
trial
de
novo
released
personal
recognizance
use
habeas
corpus
restricted
situations
applicant
actual
physical
custody
massachusetts
statute
respondent
released
subjected
restraints
shared
public
generally
including
obligations
appear
trial
depart
without
leave
cf
hensley
municipal
pp
respondent
exhausted
state
remedies
respect
double
jeopardy
claim
massachusetts
judicial
rejected
claim
fact
might
ultimately
acquitted
trial
de
novo
alter
fact
taken
claim
tried
far
state
courts
requirement
defendant
run
entire
gamut
state
procedures
including
retrial
prior
consideration
claim
federal
require
sacrifice
protection
double
jeopardy
clause
twice
put
trial
offense
pp
respondent
retrial
de
novo
without
judicial
determination
sufficiency
evidence
prior
bench
trial
violate
double
jeopardy
clause
pp
ludwig
massachusetts
upholding
prior
massachusetts
system
trial
courts
differed
present
one
requiring
defendant
participate
proceedings
allowing
choose
jury
trial
first
instance
disturbed
decision
burks
supra
dispositive
double
jeopardy
issue
pp
case
state
attempting
contrary
guarantees
embodied
double
jeopardy
clause
impose
multiple
punishments
single
offense
convict
respondent
acquittal
respondent
acquitted
simply
maintains
pp
concept
continuing
jeopardy
implicit
general
rule
double
jeopardy
clause
bar
retrial
reversal
conviction
acquittal
terminates
initial
jeopardy
burks
recognizes
determination
reviewing
evidence
legally
insufficient
likewise
terminates
initial
jeopardy
respondent
failed
identify
stage
state
proceedings
held
terminated
jeopardy
pp
massachusetts
system
constitute
governmental
oppression
sort
double
jeopardy
clause
intended
protect
even
defendant
convicted
first
tier
claims
insufficiency
evidence
defendant
absolute
right
obtain
de
novo
jury
trial
without
alleging
error
bench
trial
ameliorates
danger
affording
prosecution
opportunity
supply
evidence
failed
muster
first
proceeding
prosecution
every
incentive
put
forward
strongest
case
bench
trial
acquittal
preclude
reprosecution
defendant
nothing
stop
defendant
choosing
bench
trial
sole
purpose
getting
preview
state
case
enable
prepare
better
jury
trial
system
unlike
conventional
system
gives
defendant
two
opportunities
acquitted
facts
prosecution
obtains
conviction
second
trial
defendant
usual
appellate
remedies
pp
white
delivered
opinion
blackmun
rehnquist
joined
parts
ii
brennan
marshall
stevens
joined
parts
iii
iv
burger
powell
joined
brennan
filed
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
marshall
joined
post
powell
filed
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
burger
joined
post
stevens
filed
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
post
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
post
barbara
smith
assistant
attorney
general
massachusetts
argued
cause
petitioners
briefs
francis
bellotti
attorney
general
michael
traft
david
rossman
argued
cause
respondent
brief
eva
nilsen
eric
blumenson
burt
neuborne
charles
sims
john
reinstein
marjorie
heins
filed
brief
american
civil
liberties
union
et
al
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
justice
white
delivered
opinion
granted
certiorari
review
decision
appeals
first
circuit
affirming
issuance
writ
habeas
corpus
appeals
agreed
district
trial
de
novo
respondent
lydon
pursuant
massachusetts
system
trying
minor
crimes
violate
right
placed
twice
jeopardy
crime
determined
insufficient
evidence
critical
element
charge
adduced
trial
reverse
massachusetts
law
defendant
charged
certain
crimes
boston
municipal
may
elect
either
bench
trial
jury
trial
mass
laws
ch
west
supp
defendant
chooses
jury
convicted
normal
appellate
process
open
defendant
dissatisfied
results
bench
trial
elects
course
absolute
right
trial
de
novo
jury
convicted
defendant
chosen
bench
trial
need
allege
error
trial
obtain
de
novo
review
hand
may
rely
upon
error
bench
trial
obtain
reversal
conviction
recourse
trial
de
novo
respondent
michael
lydon
arrested
breaking
automobile
boston
charged
knowing
possession
implements
adapted
designed
forcing
breaking
open
depository
automobile
order
steal
therefrom
money
property
might
found
therein
intent
use
employ
therefor
record
complaint
lydon
elected
undergo
bench
trial
convicted
trial
judge
rejected
lydon
claim
prosecution
introduced
evidence
lydon
intended
steal
car
actions
consistent
activities
covered
complaint
lydon
sentenced
two
years
jail
lydon
requested
trial
de
novo
jury
session
boston
municipal
pending
retrial
released
personal
recognizance
jury
trial
commenced
lydon
moved
dismiss
charge
ground
evidence
element
intent
presented
bench
trial
contended
retrial
therefore
barred
principles
burks
held
double
jeopardy
clause
bars
second
trial
reviewing
reverses
conviction
ground
evidence
presented
first
trial
legally
insufficient
motion
dismiss
denied
lydon
sought
relief
single
justice
session
judicial
massachusetts
see
mass
laws
ch
west
single
justice
issued
stay
de
novo
trial
reported
two
questions
full
bench
denial
defendant
right
placed
double
jeopardy
require
go
jury
trial
requested
without
waiving
rights
evidence
bench
trial
insufficient
warrant
conviction
assuming
jury
trial
instance
denial
defendant
right
placed
double
jeopardy
may
issue
sufficiency
evidence
bench
trial
considered
trial
level
assuming
course
judge
bench
trial
denied
appropriate
request
ruling
evidence
bench
trial
insufficient
review
judicial
initially
noted
single
justice
sit
reviewing
determining
sufficiency
evidence
conclusion
reached
issue
made
purpose
reporting
clearly
framed
questions
full
bench
adjudication
rights
parties
case
lydon
commonwealth
mass
cert
denied
massachusetts
found
lydon
double
jeopardy
argument
without
merit
appellate
ruled
evidence
insufficient
lydon
trial
indeed
ever
occasion
massachusetts
law
found
burks
inapplicable
burks
observed
address
question
whether
double
jeopardy
principles
defendant
convicted
insufficient
evidence
bench
trial
right
reconsideration
sufficiency
evidence
prior
trial
de
novo
concluded
defendant
placed
double
jeopardy
merely
avenue
relief
conviction
based
insufficient
evidence
voluntarily
sought
bench
trial
trial
de
novo
second
reported
question
concluded
valid
double
jeopardy
claim
dealt
prior
trial
de
novo
although
acknowledged
conclusion
question
rendered
largely
academic
answer
first
question
since
double
jeopardy
claim
presented
necessarily
rejected
lydon
filed
petition
writ
habeas
corpus
district
district
massachusetts
first
addressing
question
jurisdiction
district
held
lydon
custody
purposes
exhausted
state
remedies
state
remedy
available
short
submitting
second
trial
supp
merits
district
viewed
burks
supra
bestow
ing
constitutional
right
upon
defendants
retried
initial
conviction
rests
insufficient
evidence
thought
holding
foreclosed
second
trial
evidence
lydon
bench
trial
insufficient
reviewing
transcript
bench
trial
district
concluded
insufficient
evidence
intent
support
conviction
ordered
writ
issue
appeal
divided
appeals
first
circuit
affirmed
respects
ii
first
address
commonwealth
contention
district
lacked
jurisdiction
entertain
lydon
habeas
corpus
action
custody
purposes
statute
exhausted
state
remedies
writ
habeas
corpus
shall
extend
prisoner
unless
custody
violation
constitution
laws
treaties
similarly
writ
habeas
corpus
available
persons
custody
pursuant
judgment
state
petitioners
argue
lydon
first
conviction
vacated
applied
trial
de
novo
released
personal
recognizance
custody
cases
make
clear
use
habeas
corpus
restricted
situations
applicant
actual
physical
custody
jones
cunningham
hensley
municipal
held
petitioner
enlarged
recognizance
pending
execution
sentence
custody
within
meaning
hensley
release
personal
recognizance
subject
conditions
appear
ordered
waive
extradition
apprehended
outside
state
revoke
order
release
require
returned
confinement
post
bail
although
restraints
lydon
freedom
identical
imposed
hensley
think
sufficiently
different
require
different
result
massachusetts
statute
lydon
released
subjects
restraints
shared
public
generally
obligation
appear
trial
jury
session
scheduled
day
also
subsequent
time
case
may
continued
time
time
final
sentence
mass
laws
ch
west
failure
appear
without
sufficient
excuse
constitutes
criminal
offense
ch
also
lydon
fails
appear
jury
session
may
required
without
trial
serve
sentence
originally
imposed
ch
finally
statute
requires
depart
without
leave
meantime
keep
peace
good
behavior
ch
consequently
believe
appeals
correctly
held
lydon
custody
petitioners
contend
conclusion
person
released
personal
recognizance
custody
purposes
federal
habeas
corpus
statutes
ope
door
federal
persons
prior
trial
brief
petitioners
addressed
argument
hensley
finally
emphasize
decision
open
doors
district
courts
habeas
corpus
petitions
persons
released
bail
recognizance
concerned
petitioner
convicted
state
apparently
exhausted
available
state
opportunities
conviction
set
aside
state
defendant
released
bail
recognizance
pending
trial
pending
appeal
must
still
contend
requirements
exhaustion
doctrine
seeks
habeas
corpus
relief
federal
courts
nothing
today
opinion
alters
application
doctrine
defendant
also
convinced
lydon
exhausted
state
remedies
respect
claim
second
trial
violate
right
twice
placed
jeopardy
unless
judicially
determined
evidence
first
trial
sufficient
sustain
conviction
precise
claim
presented
rejected
judicial
massachusetts
definitively
ruled
lydon
right
review
sufficiency
evidence
first
trial
trial
de
novo
without
determination
violate
double
jeopardy
clause
lydon
may
ultimately
acquitted
trial
de
novo
alter
fact
taken
claim
tried
far
state
courts
keep
mind
respect
unique
nature
double
jeopardy
right
abney
held
denial
motion
dismiss
indictment
double
jeopardy
grounds
constitutes
final
order
purposes
decision
based
upon
special
nature
double
jeopardy
right
recognition
right
fully
vindicated
appeal
following
final
judgment
since
part
double
jeopardy
clause
protects
twice
put
trial
offense
emphasis
original
clause
protects
interests
wholly
unrelated
propriety
subsequent
conviction
requirement
defendant
run
entire
gamut
state
procedures
including
retrial
prior
consideration
claim
federal
require
sacrifice
one
protections
double
jeopardy
clause
view
therefore
lydon
exhausted
double
jeopardy
claim
state
courts
precondition
district
jurisdiction
satisfied
conclude
however
district
appeals
erred
sustaining
lydon
double
jeopardy
claim
view
lydon
retried
de
novo
without
judicial
determination
sufficiency
evidence
prior
bench
trial
iii
ludwig
massachusetts
upheld
prior
massachusetts
system
trial
courts
criminal
cases
present
system
differs
system
upheld
ludwig
one
respect
significance
prior
massachusetts
reorganization
act
defendant
elect
jury
trial
first
instance
required
participate
proceedings
present
system
noted
defendant
may
avoid
trial
altogether
proceed
directly
jury
trial
upholding
prior
massachusetts
system
stated
massachusetts
system
presents
danger
prosecution
accused
pardoned
doubt
acquittal
first
tier
precludes
reprosecution
instead
argument
appears
appellant
placed
jeopardy
convicted
state
may
retry
informs
trial
decision
appeal
secure
trial
de
novo
appellant
argument
without
substance
decision
secure
new
trial
rests
accused
alone
defendant
elects
tried
de
novo
massachusetts
different
position
convicted
defendant
successfully
appeals
basis
trial
record
gains
reversal
conviction
remand
case
new
trial
circumstances
long
clear
state
may
reprosecute
ball
difference
appeal
record
appeal
resulting
automatically
new
trial
convicted
defendant
massachusetts
may
obtain
reversal
new
trial
without
assignment
error
proceedings
first
trial
nothing
double
jeopardy
clause
prohibits
state
affording
defendant
two
opportunities
avoid
conviction
secure
acquittal
short
reversal
trial
error
distinguished
evidentiary
insufficiency
constitute
decision
effect
government
failed
prove
case
implies
nothing
respect
guilt
innocence
defendant
said
defendant
conviction
overturned
due
failure
proof
trial
case
prosecution
complain
prejudice
given
one
fair
opportunity
offer
whatever
proof
assemble
moreover
appellate
reversal
means
government
case
lacking
even
submitted
jury
since
necessarily
afford
absolute
finality
jury
verdict
acquittal
matter
erroneous
decision
difficult
conceive
society
greater
interest
retrying
defendant
review
decided
matter
law
jury
properly
returned
verdict
guilty
omitted
emphasis
original
lydon
argues
appeals
held
statement
ludwig
defendant
elects
tried
de
novo
position
convicted
defendant
successfully
appeals
combined
holding
burks
setting
aside
conviction
basis
evidentiary
insufficiency
bars
retrial
mandates
conclusion
trial
de
novo
barred
double
jeopardy
clause
evidence
presented
bench
trial
insufficient
support
finding
guilt
unpersuaded
double
jeopardy
clause
fifth
amendment
provides
person
shall
subject
offence
twice
put
jeopardy
life
limb
benton
maryland
held
guarantee
applicable
fourteenth
amendment
cases
recognized
three
separate
guarantees
embodied
double
jeopardy
clause
protects
second
prosecution
offense
acquittal
second
prosecution
offense
conviction
multiple
punishments
offense
illinois
vitale
primary
goal
barring
reprosecution
acquittal
prevent
state
mounting
successive
prosecutions
thereby
wearing
defendant
explained
green
underlying
idea
one
deeply
ingrained
least
system
jurisprudence
state
resources
power
allowed
make
repeated
attempts
convict
individual
alleged
offense
thereby
subjecting
embarrassment
expense
ordeal
compelling
live
continuing
state
anxiety
insecurity
well
enhancing
possibility
even
though
innocent
may
found
guilty
case
commonwealth
attempting
impose
multiple
punishments
single
offense
making
another
attempt
convict
lydon
acquittal
satisfied
results
bench
trial
abided
results
jury
trial
lydon
taken
initial
course
conceptual
difficulty
lydon
acquitted
simply
maintains
claim
evidence
bench
trial
insufficient
convict
second
trial
jury
offend
fundamental
rule
verdict
acquittal
may
reviewed
error
otherwise
without
putting
defendant
twice
jeopardy
ball
martin
linen
supply
cases
however
take
us
far
lydon
like
double
jeopardy
clause
absolute
bar
successive
trials
general
rule
clause
bar
reprosecution
defendant
whose
conviction
overturned
appeal
ball
supra
justification
rule
explained
tateo
follows
different
theories
advanced
support
permissibility
retrial
greater
importance
conceptual
abstractions
employed
explain
ball
principle
implications
principle
sound
administration
justice
corresponding
right
accused
given
fair
trial
societal
interest
punishing
one
whose
guilt
clear
obtained
trial
high
price
indeed
society
pay
every
accused
granted
immunity
punishment
defect
sufficient
constitute
reversible
error
proceedings
leading
conviction
assume
without
deciding
jeopardy
attached
swearing
first
witness
lydon
bench
trial
question
whether
jeopardy
terminated
lydon
double
jeopardy
argument
requires
affirmative
answer
question
fails
identify
stage
state
proceedings
held
terminated
jeopardy
unlike
burks
rest
claim
upon
appellate
determination
insufficiency
lydon
faced
unreversed
determination
judge
contrary
lydon
assertion
prosecution
met
burden
proof
noted
martin
linen
supply
supra
acquittal
represents
resolution
correct
factual
elements
offense
charged
emphasis
added
lydon
claim
evidentiary
failure
legal
judgment
effect
therefore
different
consequences
double
jeopardy
clause
believe
dissent
appeals
correctly
described
nature
de
novo
hearing
follows
technically
defendant
tried
second
stage
proceeding
regarded
enlarged
part
single
continuous
course
judicial
proceedings
sooner
later
defendant
receives
rather
less
process
normally
extended
criminal
defendants
nation
campbell
dissenting
iv
number
features
massachusetts
system
persuade
us
constitute
governmental
oppression
sort
double
jeopardy
clause
intended
protect
scott
even
defendant
convicted
first
tier
claims
insufficiency
evidence
note
outset
lydon
jeopardy
theoretical
sense
although
technically
jeopardy
double
jeopardy
clause
entails
potential
risk
trial
conviction
punishment
price
georgia
supra
worthy
note
virtually
nothing
happen
defendant
trial
avoid
absolute
right
obtain
de
novo
trial
need
allege
error
trial
right
de
novo
trial
exercised
judgment
bench
trial
wiped
mann
commonwealth
mass
defendant
right
obtain
de
novo
review
without
alleging
error
significant
ameliorates
one
concerns
underlying
opinion
burks
burks
recognized
danger
affording
prosecution
another
opportunity
supply
evidence
failed
muster
first
proceeding
appeals
case
stated
process
judicial
review
conveniently
pinpointed
evidence
lacking
retrial
simply
gives
prosecutor
another
opportunity
supply
however
process
judicial
review
resulted
identification
precise
area
insufficiency
part
ordinary
massachusetts
procedure
occurred
lydon
double
jeopardy
claim
intervention
federal
courts
usual
case
review
prior
jury
trial
claim
decision
case
creates
incentive
prosecutor
hold
back
learn
defendant
case
first
trial
order
hone
presentation
second
unpersuasive
prosecution
every
incentive
put
forward
strongest
case
bench
trial
acquittal
preclude
reprosecution
defendant
although
admittedly
commonwealth
de
novo
trial
benefit
seen
defense
defendant
likewise
opportunity
assess
prosecution
case
cases
judge
presiding
bench
trial
expected
acquit
defendant
legally
insufficient
evidence
presented
clear
system
provides
substantial
benefits
defendants
well
commonwealth
fact
recognized
ludwig
massachusetts
appears
nothing
stop
defendant
choosing
bench
trial
sole
purpose
getting
preview
commonwealth
case
enable
prepare
better
jury
trial
put
matter
another
way
observed
colten
kentucky
defendant
chances
system
reality
accept
decision
judge
sentence
imposed
inferior
reject
effect
offer
settlement
case
seek
judgment
judge
jury
superior
sentence
determined
full
record
made
dissent
appeals
recognized
system
affords
benefits
defendants
unavailable
conventional
system
campbell
dissenting
traditional
systems
convicted
defendant
may
seek
reversal
matters
law
massachusetts
system
defendant
given
two
opportunities
acquitted
facts
acquitted
first
trial
retried
see
ludwig
massachusetts
supra
convicted
may
choose
invoke
right
trial
de
novo
put
prosecution
proof
prosecution
fails
second
trial
convince
defendant
guilt
beyond
reasonable
doubt
acquittal
results
prosecution
succeeds
obtaining
conviction
second
time
defendant
usual
appellate
remedies
noted
ludwig
othing
double
jeopardy
clause
prohibits
state
affording
defendant
two
opportunities
avoid
conviction
secure
acquittal
although
judge
campbell
said
dissent
colleagues
opinion
reflects
intelligence
logic
agree
relentless
application
secondary
precepts
developed
different
settings
led
wrong
result
required
constitution
destructive
useful
fair
state
procedure
accordingly
reverse
judgment
appeals
ordered
footnotes
carve
jurisdictional
exception
double
jeopardy
allegations
respect
custody
nothing
discussion
custody
dependent
upon
nature
claim
raised
extent
double
jeopardy
claims
treated
differently
habeas
purposes
application
exhaustion
principle
different
definition
custody
adopted
exhaustion
requirement
set
forth
provides
relevant
part
application
writ
habeas
corpus
behalf
person
custody
pursuant
judgment
state
shall
granted
unless
appears
applicant
exhausted
remedies
available
courts
state
either
absence
available
state
corrective
process
existence
circumstances
rendering
process
ineffective
protect
rights
prisoner
applicant
shall
deemed
exhausted
remedies
available
courts
state
within
meaning
section
right
law
state
raise
available
procedure
question
presented
section
specifically
allows
issuance
habeas
writs
circumstances
exist
rendering
state
process
ineffective
protect
rights
prisoner
circumstances
case
state
procedures
lydon
may
avail
avoid
allegedly
unconstitutional
second
trial
conclusion
otherwise
exhaustion
issue
arise
district
appeals
held
lydon
entitled
determination
sufficiency
evidence
first
trial
also
proceeded
make
evidentiary
determination
yet
seems
us
judicial
massachusetts
held
double
jeopardy
claim
lydon
might
made
prior
beginning
second
trial
although
candidly
stated
opinion
claim
succeed
massachusetts
wrong
however
ruling
lydon
entitled
sufficiency
determination
apparent
way
open
present
claim
de
novo
precisely
manner
massachusetts
suggested
double
jeopardy
claim
submitted
view
therefore
federal
habeas
corpus
event
ruled
sufficiency
evidence
lydon
first
trial
stayed
hand
permitted
state
make
determination
first
instance
otherwise
lydon
said
exhausted
state
remedies
satisfied
requirements
reason
reliance
lydon
courts
jackson
virginia
misplaced
jackson
held
federal
habeas
courts
must
consider
petitioner
federal
due
process
claim
evidence
support
conviction
insufficient
led
rational
trier
fact
find
guilty
beyond
reasonable
doubt
one
suggested
however
jackson
way
created
exception
exhaustion
requirement
view
lydon
may
retried
convicted
without
review
sufficiency
evidence
bench
trial
never
occasion
federal
habeas
corpus
deal
evidentiary
issue
trial
since
justice
stevens
disagrees
double
jeopardy
decision
asserts
federal
must
perform
jackson
virginia
function
respect
evidence
first
trial
postpone
task
second
trial
however
course
lydon
convicted
jury
trial
sufficiency
evidence
trial
concededly
open
review
federal
jackson
virginia
mandates
clause
also
course
protects
retrial
declaration
mistrial
certain
circumstances
see
scott
justice
brennan
suggests
voluntary
nature
system
strongly
influences
conclusion
post
clear
given
reasoning
based
upon
defendant
expectations
rather
theory
waiver
appears
defendants
recognize
advantages
systems
one
period
studied
defendants
chose
jury
trial
first
instance
moreover
thousands
cases
disposed
convictions
bench
trials
many
convicted
defendants
exercise
right
appeal
jury
trial
session
lydon
commonwealth
mass
cert
denied
also
note
fact
advantages
systems
led
almost
half
adopt
systems
see
course
present
massachusetts
system
defendant
also
wholly
avoid
consequences
trial
avoiding
trial
altogether
defendant
unqualified
right
proceed
jury
trial
first
instance
thus
said
commonwealth
required
lydon
submit
two
trials
sense
current
massachusetts
system
favorable
defendants
system
upheld
constitutional
attack
ludwig
massachusetts
slightest
hint
record
lydon
represented
counsel
choose
bench
trial
voluntarily
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
joins
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
agree
respondent
custody
within
meaning
exhausted
available
state
remedies
constitutional
claim
district
jurisdiction
entertain
habeas
corpus
petition
accordingly
join
parts
ii
opinion
analyze
merits
differently
however
therefore
join
parts
iii
iv
opinion
rejects
lydon
double
jeopardy
claim
relying
absence
government
oppression
presence
continuing
jeopardy
many
reasons
advanced
well
others
see
infra
completely
agree
trial
option
available
massachusetts
defendants
appears
eminently
fair
reasonable
therefore
evidence
kind
governmental
oppression
might
apart
analytical
considerations
provide
independent
basis
double
jeopardy
claim
however
believe
understand
suggest
absence
governmental
oppression
standing
alone
defeat
double
jeopardy
claim
otherwise
valid
cases
first
blush
lydon
appears
present
claim
assumes
petitioners
concede
jeopardy
attached
swearing
first
witness
lydon
bench
trial
ante
commonwealth
claim
lacked
fair
opportunity
present
best
evidence
challenge
district
determination
based
application
massachusetts
decisions
directly
point
state
failed
matter
law
prove
case
lydon
see
opinion
finally
seems
acknowledge
result
today
decision
lydon
undergo
two
trials
ante
accordingly
lydon
appears
establish
contrary
rule
unanimously
reaffirmed
three
terms
ago
subjected
retrial
state
failed
matter
law
prove
case
despite
fair
opportunity
hudson
louisiana
meets
argument
noting
lydon
claim
evidentiary
failure
legal
judgment
effect
ante
invoking
concept
continuing
jeopardy
maintains
legal
judgment
required
jeopardy
terminated
retrial
barred
view
enough
purposes
lydon
obtained
legal
judgment
evidence
constitutionally
inadequate
federal
district
acting
within
jurisdiction
defendant
exhausted
state
remedies
instead
lydon
claim
must
rejected
fails
identify
stage
state
proceedings
held
terminated
jeopardy
ante
agree
valid
double
jeopardy
claim
presupposes
identifiable
point
first
trial
may
said
ended
see
infra
respectfully
suggest
however
mere
incantation
phrase
continuing
jeopardy
without
partakes
sort
conceptual
abstractions
decisions
elaborating
requirements
double
jeopardy
clause
attempted
avoid
see
tateo
example
although
holds
double
jeopardy
clause
bars
retrial
certain
legal
judgments
approach
sets
apparent
limits
state
ability
withhold
necessary
legal
judgment
thereby
maintaining
state
continuing
jeopardy
justifying
repeated
attempts
gain
conviction
ignoring
realities
lydon
situation
demanding
legal
judgment
acquittal
manages
avoid
grappling
intuition
guilty
verdict
rendered
end
lydon
trial
constitutes
obvious
point
proceedings
terminated
best
knowledge
first
occasion
employed
continuing
jeopardy
notion
formalistic
fashion
today
repeatedly
emphasized
concept
continuing
jeopardy
best
label
occasionally
used
explain
accused
secured
reversal
conviction
appeal
may
retried
offense
breed
jones
see
also
burks
price
georgia
talismanic
substitute
analysis
continuing
jeopardy
concept
never
adopted
majority
breed
jones
supra
quoting
jenkins
particular
rule
allowing
retrials
reversal
trial
error
first
announced
ball
never
rested
theory
notwithstanding
guilty
verdict
ending
trial
level
proceedings
trial
never
terminated
defendant
therefore
remained
state
continuing
jeopardy
instead
grounded
ball
rule
implications
principle
sound
administration
justice
tateo
supra
see
also
tibbs
florida
difrancesco
scott
wilson
opinion
burks
provided
fullest
explanation
ball
rule
also
explained
rule
permit
retrials
reversals
based
insufficient
evidence
eversal
trial
error
distinguished
evidentiary
insufficiency
constitute
decision
effect
government
failed
prove
case
implies
nothing
respect
guilt
innocence
defendant
rather
determination
defendant
convicted
judicial
process
defective
fundamental
respect
occurs
accused
strong
interest
obtaining
fair
readjudication
guilt
free
error
society
maintains
valid
concern
insuring
guilty
punished
said
defendant
conviction
overturned
due
failure
proof
trial
case
prosecution
complain
prejudice
given
one
fair
opportunity
offer
whatever
proof
assemble
moreover
appellate
reversal
means
government
case
lacking
even
submitted
jury
since
necessarily
afford
absolute
finality
jury
verdict
acquittal
matter
erroneous
decision
difficult
conceive
society
greater
interest
retrying
defendant
review
decided
matter
law
jury
properly
returned
verdict
guilty
burks
supra
emphasis
original
omitted
sure
burks
rule
engaged
unless
conviction
first
trial
reversed
state
seeks
retrial
burks
forbids
retrial
circumstances
evidence
first
trial
constitutionally
insufficient
respect
quite
correct
stating
prerequisite
successful
burks
claim
legal
judgment
rendered
point
evidence
insufficient
standards
jackson
virginia
supra
continuing
jeopardy
concept
begs
questions
whether
defendant
entitled
judgment
barring
proceedings
concept
provides
defendant
burks
simply
fortunate
reviewing
chose
provide
judicial
determination
evidence
insufficient
support
conviction
ante
instead
rely
alternative
ground
reversal
latter
event
burks
like
lydon
left
claim
evidentiary
failure
legal
judgment
effect
ibid
agree
protections
double
jeopardy
clause
depend
heavily
grace
reviewing
see
infra
reasons
find
invocation
unadorned
continuing
jeopardy
concept
helpful
resolving
issues
posed
case
instead
employ
label
continuing
jeopardy
attempt
give
content
turning
principles
policies
double
jeopardy
clause
elaborated
analogous
cases
ii
order
twice
put
jeopardy
life
limb
offense
amdt
emphasis
added
defendant
facing
new
trial
must
subjected
previous
proceeding
jeopardy
attached
matter
federal
constitutional
law
crist
bretz
somehow
ended
terminology
former
jeopardy
must
terminated
course
sufficient
defendant
claims
one
proceeding
concluded
another
begun
example
second
half
trial
subject
defendant
double
jeopardy
motion
mistrial
denied
middle
proceedings
even
though
defendant
asserts
far
concerned
trial
ended
instead
every
valid
double
jeopardy
claim
presupposes
kind
predicate
set
circumstances
typically
attendant
verdict
judgment
order
dismissing
case
objectively
concluding
one
trial
giving
rise
prosecution
effort
begin
another
question
whether
jeopardy
objectively
terminated
analyzed
terms
policies
underlying
double
jeopardy
clause
namely
concern
repeated
trials
may
subject
defendant
embarrassment
expense
ordeal
compe
live
continuing
state
anxiety
insecurity
well
enhancing
possibility
even
though
innocent
may
found
guilty
green
jeopardy
may
said
terminated
posture
trial
objective
sense
leaves
defendant
position
resumption
proceedings
implicate
policies
hence
although
instances
legal
judgment
undoubtedly
entails
kind
circumstances
may
easily
conclude
jeopardy
terminated
seems
obvious
state
may
evade
strictures
clause
simply
withholding
legal
judgment
thereby
subjecting
defendant
retrial
theory
continuing
jeopardy
take
two
extreme
examples
trial
judge
received
jury
verdict
guilty
may
justify
order
trial
repeated
refusing
enter
formal
judgment
jury
verdict
may
state
system
avoid
double
jeopardy
claim
refusing
acknowledge
first
trial
fact
begun
ended
hypothetical
situations
admittedly
unrealistic
nevertheless
demonstrate
determination
whether
trial
fact
terminated
purposes
double
jeopardy
clause
like
question
whether
trial
begun
crist
bretz
supra
issue
federal
constitutional
law
turn
solely
whether
state
entered
legal
judgment
ending
proceedings
cf
martin
linen
supply
constitutes
acquittal
controlled
form
judge
action
fact
trial
ended
however
complete
constitutional
inquiry
concluded
notably
applying
ball
rule
strong
policy
reasons
may
justify
subjecting
defendant
two
trials
certain
circumstances
notwithstanding
literal
language
double
jeopardy
clause
see
supra
issue
whether
policy
reasons
kind
justify
retrial
given
case
however
analytically
distinct
question
whether
challenged
proceeding
constitutes
second
trial
instead
continuation
first
cases
applying
ball
rule
instance
acknowledge
defendant
subjected
two
trials
find
fact
constitutionally
permissible
tateo
accordingly
determined
trial
ended
matter
constitutional
law
considering
double
jeopardy
claim
must
consider
separate
question
whether
second
trial
violate
constitution
example
defendant
challenging
conviction
appeal
contends
trial
infected
error
evidence
constitutionally
insufficient
may
consistent
rule
burks
ignore
sufficiency
claim
reverse
grounds
trial
error
remand
retrial
first
trial
plainly
ended
retrial
foreclosed
double
jeopardy
clause
evidence
fails
satisfy
constitutional
standard
sufficiency
hence
sufficiency
issue
avoided
retrial
evidence
must
found
legally
sufficient
matter
federal
law
sustain
jury
verdict
tibbs
florida
white
dissenting
see
majority
opinion
noting
consideration
evidentiary
sufficiency
ordering
retrial
part
state
appellate
obligations
enforce
applicable
state
federal
laws
short
believe
two
distinct
limitations
state
ability
retry
defendant
claim
continuing
jeopardy
first
issue
whether
trial
ended
second
trial
constitute
double
jeopardy
federal
constitutional
question
informed
controlled
state
characterization
status
proceedings
resolution
question
turns
essentially
relationship
circumstances
issue
policies
underlying
double
jeopardy
clause
second
determined
first
trial
fact
ended
terminating
former
jeopardy
matter
federal
constitutional
law
state
may
place
defendant
jeopardy
second
time
retrial
constitutionally
barred
grounds
properly
preserved
presented
iii
case
guilty
verdict
rendered
judge
undeniably
ended
set
proceedings
naturally
understood
single
completed
trial
arguably
therefore
verdict
terminated
jeopardy
evidence
first
trial
insufficient
retrial
lydon
second
tier
constitutionally
barred
burks
without
regard
whether
vacating
guilty
verdict
otherwise
permit
new
trial
ball
rule
lydon
fully
exhausted
available
state
remedies
federal
habeas
fully
authorized
vindicate
claim
trial
conviction
see
ante
arizona
washington
unique
context
massachusetts
trial
system
however
believe
guilty
verdict
first
tier
attended
type
circumstances
said
terminate
proceedings
lydon
purposes
double
jeopardy
clause
terms
policies
advanced
clause
verdict
substantially
less
significance
defendant
traditional
system
see
generally
colten
kentucky
latter
context
defendant
right
insist
two
opportunities
prove
case
rebut
prosecution
although
ultimately
may
two
trials
conviction
reversed
appeal
trial
error
eventuality
largely
beyond
defendant
control
defendant
therefore
ordinarily
approach
trial
assumption
opportunity
influence
factfinder
favor
expectation
presumably
result
maximum
dedication
defendant
resources
trial
turn
engender
significant
degree
anxiety
course
proceedings
contrast
dissenting
judge
appeals
pointed
lydon
chose
tried
system
defining
characteristic
provides
defendant
two
full
opportunities
acquitted
facts
campbell
dissenting
emphasis
original
unlike
defendant
traditional
trial
system
defendant
lydon
position
knows
outset
proceeding
conclusion
demand
chance
convince
second
factfinder
innocent
knowledge
permits
adopt
advance
trial
strategy
based
opportunity
example
withhold
stronger
evidence
intention
introducing
second
tier
evaluating
prosecution
entire
case
addition
take
risks
presentation
secure
knowledge
avoid
resulting
dangers
second
time
around
perhaps
importantly
defendant
realization
throughout
trial
absolute
right
second
chance
necessarily
mitigates
sense
irrevocability
normally
attends
factfinding
stage
criminal
proceedings
beginning
end
reasons
defendant
prospective
knowledge
entitlement
second
factfinding
opportunity
substantially
diminishes
burden
imposed
first
proceeding
well
significance
guilty
verdict
ending
proceeding
furthermore
strategic
advantage
gained
defendant
chooses
system
enhanced
virtue
fact
prosecution
share
equivalent
advantage
notes
prosecution
every
incentive
put
forward
strongest
case
bench
trial
acquittal
preclude
reprosecution
defendant
ante
also
notes
lthough
admittedly
commonwealth
de
novo
trial
benefit
seen
defense
defendant
likewise
opportunity
assess
prosecution
case
ibid
course
points
advanced
justify
retrial
defendant
convicted
traditional
system
appealed
practice
prohibited
double
jeopardy
clause
see
ante
distinguishes
massachusetts
system
however
permits
compel
defendant
secure
advantage
knowing
advance
prosecution
may
demand
second
factfinding
opportunity
advantage
substantially
reduces
significance
circumstances
surrounding
guilty
verdict
concluding
point
conclude
verdict
terminate
jeopardy
conclusion
unaffected
lydon
claim
earlier
massachusetts
cases
led
believe
challenge
sufficiency
evidence
presented
trial
motion
dismiss
filed
outset
see
brief
respondent
cf
post
stevens
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
assuming
authoritativeness
cases
lydon
reasonable
reliance
commonwealth
failure
provide
promised
avenue
relief
might
amount
violation
due
process
prospect
remedy
however
bear
whether
circumstances
surrounding
guilty
verdict
end
first
tier
terminated
proceedings
purposes
double
jeopardy
clause
faced
charge
believes
prosecution
constitutionally
insufficient
evidence
defendant
lydon
position
choose
ordinary
system
expectation
sufficiency
claim
sustained
never
required
undergo
second
trial
burks
decision
select
system
instead
necessarily
achieves
advantages
flowing
knowledge
demand
second
factfinding
opportunity
even
choice
made
hedge
possibility
insufficiency
claim
rejected
every
defendant
believes
entertain
selection
alternative
clearly
diminishes
strategic
emotional
significance
guilty
verdict
first
tier
reasons
conclude
guilty
verdict
rendered
end
lydon
bench
trial
purposes
double
jeopardy
clause
terminate
one
trial
thereby
permit
claim
second
trial
barred
due
insufficient
evidence
accordingly
agree
federal
habeas
erred
sustaining
lydon
claim
merits
therefore
join
judgment
although
appears
part
ii
otherwise
concur
agree
implications
opinion
see
infra
lydon
contend
commonwealth
required
federal
constitution
afford
appellate
review
evidence
presented
bench
trial
proceeding
trial
see
brief
respondent
instead
lydon
argues
commonwealth
violated
burks
ordering
undergo
second
trial
despite
claims
insufficient
evidence
first
trial
appears
recognize
jurisdiction
federal
habeas
entertain
claim
depend
failure
provide
appellate
indeed
kind
review
sufficiency
second
trial
habeas
jurisdiction
long
defendant
exhausted
whatever
state
remedies
fact
available
see
ante
ultimately
decision
rests
ipse
dixit
cquittals
unlike
convictions
terminate
initial
jeopardy
ante
nowhere
explains
acquittal
marks
end
trial
conviction
case
judgment
defendant
entitled
acquittal
lack
effect
cf
green
quoting
ex
parte
lange
wall
common
law
prohibited
second
punishment
offence
went
forb
ade
second
trial
offence
whether
accused
suffered
punishment
whether
former
trial
acquitted
convicted
cf
post
stevens
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
infra
event
fact
convictions
terminate
jeopardy
renewed
prosecution
defendant
unreversed
conviction
offense
acknowledges
barred
ante
constitute
continuing
double
jeopardy
theory
approach
prohibition
prosecution
justified
policy
subjecting
defendant
multiple
punishments
offense
guilty
verdict
terminate
proceedings
convicted
defendant
subjected
prosecution
offense
simply
twice
put
jeopardy
within
language
double
jeopardy
clause
amdt
emphasis
added
see
missouri
hunter
respect
cumulative
sentences
imposed
single
trial
double
jeopardy
clause
prevent
sentencing
prescribing
greater
punishment
legislature
intended
finds
authority
approach
statement
price
georgia
concept
continuing
jeopardy
implicit
ball
case
opinion
price
however
approve
broad
continuing
jeopardy
approach
indeed
notes
ante
price
suggested
light
modern
double
jeopardy
cases
conclusion
represented
continuing
jeopardy
label
reflects
amalgam
interests
fairness
society
lack
finality
limited
waiver
among
others
like
tateo
jenkins
breed
burks
scott
wilson
difrancesco
tibbs
therefore
price
eschewed
reliance
mere
shibboleth
continuing
jeopardy
modern
double
jeopardy
cases
emphasized
absent
substantial
countervailing
state
interests
ordinarily
obtain
conviction
reversed
grounds
trial
error
state
resources
power
allowed
make
repeated
attempts
convict
individual
alleged
offense
thereby
subjecting
embarrassment
expense
ordeal
compelling
live
continuing
state
anxiety
insecurity
well
enhancing
possibility
even
though
innocent
may
found
guilty
green
see
also
tibbs
florida
although
quotes
language
green
ante
continuing
jeopardy
concept
relies
originally
set
justice
holmes
dissenting
opinion
kepner
entails
discernible
limit
government
ability
repeatedly
retry
defendant
cause
seems
logically
rationally
man
said
jeopardy
cause
however
often
may
tried
jeopardy
one
continuing
jeopardy
beginning
end
cause
approach
proposed
fully
consistent
ludwig
massachusetts
indeed
avoids
tension
suggested
opinion
case
burks
see
ante
notes
opinion
ludwig
analogized
trial
proceedings
massachusetts
retrial
reversal
conviction
permissible
ball
rule
rely
notion
jeopardy
continued
proceedings
rendering
single
trial
rather
assumed
ball
second
tier
constituted
new
trial
course
suggestion
ludwig
new
trial
barred
absence
constitutionally
sufficient
evidence
issue
presented
case
therefore
occasion
consider
whether
guilty
verdict
ludwig
trial
terminated
jeopardy
contrary
suggestion
lydon
exhausted
every
available
state
remedy
element
burks
argument
including
argument
predicate
claim
evidence
first
trial
insufficient
implying
sufficiency
issue
unexhausted
lydon
failed
present
claim
de
novo
precisely
manner
massachusetts
suggested
double
jeopardy
claim
submitted
ante
ignores
earlier
statement
efore
jury
trial
commenced
lydon
moved
dismiss
charge
ground
evidence
element
intent
presented
bench
trial
ante
indeed
opinion
massachusetts
judicial
announcing
proper
procedure
noted
lydon
moved
dismiss
case
double
jeopardy
grounds
de
novo
lydon
commonwealth
mass
petition
review
judge
denial
motion
agreed
jury
trial
session
appropriate
forum
consideration
double
jeopardy
claims
asserted
bench
trial
accordingly
effort
avoid
conclusion
jackson
virginia
authorized
federal
habeas
consider
sufficiency
evidence
lydon
first
trial
unavailing
course
features
system
identified
might
advantageous
every
defendant
indeed
nature
case
strength
government
evidence
may
characteristics
prove
undesirable
unfair
defendant
accordingly
find
significant
aspects
massachusetts
system
depart
traditional
trial
forced
defendant
commonwealth
permits
defendant
decide
whether
accept
burdens
proceeding
exchange
benefits
need
decide
whether
system
allows
choice
also
survive
constitutional
scrutiny
cf
ludwig
massachusetts
stevens
dissenting
see
also
ward
village
monroeville
justice
powell
chief
justice
joins
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
agree
justice
federal
habeas
corpus
jurisdiction
continue
believe
hensley
municipal
wrongly
decided
reasons
indicated
dissent
case
accepting
hensley
law
reason
extend
find
lydon
custody
free
recognizance
justice
explains
hensley
best
understood
interpreting
custody
include
cases
criminal
defendant
already
convicted
sentenced
imprisoned
without
state
judicial
action
prison
sentence
stayed
federal
habeas
state
emphatically
indicated
determination
put
hensley
behind
bars
done
stay
federal
district
lydon
petition
present
case
lydon
convicted
obligated
appear
trial
keep
peace
trial
finds
defaulted
recognizance
may
sentence
pursuant
first
conviction
lydon
may
seek
appellate
review
see
commonwealth
bartlett
mass
trivializes
habeas
corpus
jurisdiction
historically
protection
governmental
oppression
use
remedy
restraints
petty
lydon
subject
however
chooses
different
tack
address
merits
well
join
parts
iii
iv
justice
white
opinion
justice
stevens
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
necessary
analyze
character
substantive
claim
made
respondent
addressing
difficult
procedural
questions
properly
analyzed
respondent
habeas
corpus
petition
raises
two
distinct
constitutional
claims
first
whether
entry
judgment
guilt
conclusion
trial
deprived
liberty
without
due
process
law
evidence
constitutionally
insufficient
second
whether
trial
held
first
question
answered
violate
lydon
constitutional
right
twice
placed
jeopardy
offense
answer
first
question
easy
respondent
alleged
district
found
commonwealth
evidence
respondent
trial
insufficient
support
finding
guilt
trial
entitled
acquittal
acquittal
given
respondent
unconditional
freedom
instead
found
guilty
crime
sentenced
two
years
jail
true
course
massachusetts
afforded
right
judgment
vacated
demonstrated
relief
terminate
custodial
status
ante
matter
federal
constitutional
law
right
judgment
acquittal
eliminate
restraints
liberty
due
process
clause
permit
state
deprive
person
liberty
based
finding
guilt
beyond
reasonable
doubt
proceeding
failed
adduce
sufficient
evidence
persuade
trier
fact
guilt
beyond
reasonable
doubt
jackson
virginia
therefore
respondent
continued
custody
constitutes
deprivation
liberty
without
due
process
law
answer
second
question
difficult
petitioners
concede
assumes
jeopardy
attached
swearing
first
witness
respondent
trial
ante
see
also
ante
brennan
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
question
becomes
whether
commonwealth
seeks
place
respondent
jeopardy
second
time
justice
brennan
seem
state
respondent
acquitted
constitution
prohibit
trial
ante
ante
brennan
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
also
common
ground
proposition
judgment
acquittal
necessary
precondition
success
respondent
double
jeopardy
claim
says
acquittal
terminate
jeopardy
thus
second
trial
constitute
new
therefore
second
unconstitutional
attachment
jeopardy
ante
justice
brennan
writes
judgment
acquittal
obtained
constitution
prohibits
retrial
frames
question
whether
respondent
entitled
judgment
prior
second
trial
ante
makes
case
difficult
trial
actually
ended
judgment
conviction
respondent
rely
judgment
bar
trial
instead
predicate
double
jeopardy
claim
hypothetical
judgment
contends
entered
end
first
trial
agree
justice
brennan
use
concept
continuing
jeopardy
unhelpful
underlying
issue
case
whether
respondent
constitutionally
entitled
judgment
acquittal
form
predicate
double
jeopardy
claim
ante
put
another
way
judgment
acquittal
entered
adjudication
establishing
right
judgment
respondent
double
jeopardy
claim
premature
central
procedural
question
case
presents
therefore
ever
respondent
entitled
first
constitutional
claim
denied
due
process
result
trial
adjudicated
like
judicial
massachusetts
answers
question
never
disagree
suggest
respondent
current
custody
violation
due
process
clause
respondent
due
process
claim
cognizable
federal
habeas
review
jackson
claim
sustained
federal
habeas
judgment
provide
predicate
respondent
double
jeopardy
claim
judgment
federal
habeas
fall
rule
burks
said
appellate
reversal
jury
verdict
apply
equally
federal
habeas
judgment
commonwealth
evidence
trial
insufficient
appellate
reversal
means
government
case
lacking
even
submitted
jury
since
necessarily
afford
absolute
finality
jury
verdict
acquittal
matter
erroneous
decision
difficult
conceive
society
greater
interest
retrying
defendant
review
decided
matter
law
jury
properly
returned
verdict
guilty
emphasis
original
reasoning
leads
regard
difficult
issue
case
whether
federal
review
lydon
claim
rather
review
take
place
answering
question
important
keep
mind
precise
issue
federal
must
address
issue
suggests
whether
lydon
retried
de
novo
without
judicial
determination
sufficiency
evidence
prior
bench
trial
ante
omitted
judge
presided
first
trial
make
judicial
determination
evidence
sufficient
lydon
claims
determination
erroneous
indeed
evidence
constitutionally
insufficient
deny
judicial
determination
issue
whether
respondent
entitled
review
constitutional
sufficiency
prosecutor
evidence
jackson
virginia
prior
trial
join
judgment
believe
inappropriate
district
entertain
respondent
jackson
claim
prior
trial
disruption
orderly
state
processes
attendant
exercise
federal
habeas
jurisdiction
state
proceedings
remain
pending
weighs
strongly
view
decisively
exercise
jurisdiction
long
recognized
circumstances
considerations
comity
concerns
orderly
administration
criminal
justice
require
federal
forgo
exercise
habeas
corpus
power
francis
henderson
example
held
federal
courts
exercise
habeas
jurisdiction
petitioner
failed
comply
state
rules
weighty
state
interests
underlying
enforcement
rules
see
engle
isaac
wainwright
sykes
similarly
statutory
exhaustion
requirement
found
habeas
statute
reflects
recognition
federal
habeas
courts
disrupt
ongoing
state
proceedings
see
rose
lundy
indeed
leading
case
concerning
propriety
pretrial
federal
habeas
intervention
exhaustion
doctrine
cautioned
review
inappropriate
threatens
disrupt
pending
state
proceedings
orderly
state
processes
see
braden
judicial
circuit
kentucky
thus
habeas
statute
reflects
concern
disrupting
ongoing
state
proceedings
state
interest
disruption
ongoing
proceedings
squarely
implicated
exercise
federal
habeas
jurisdiction
case
respondent
convicted
bench
trial
november
jury
trial
originally
set
november
trial
delayed
four
years
delay
attributable
litigation
state
courts
three
years
worth
delay
attributable
federal
habeas
review
uphold
exercise
federal
habeas
jurisdiction
similar
delays
become
routine
massachusetts
already
cases
year
taken
jury
trial
virtually
cases
defendant
seek
federal
habeas
review
conclusion
first
trial
claiming
evidence
used
convict
insufficient
defendants
every
incentive
seek
habeas
review
delay
eventual
punishment
obtain
leverage
plea
negotiations
speed
efficiency
process
quickly
eroded
collateral
litigation
intervened
first
second
trials
wholesale
disruption
pending
proceedings
occur
federal
habeas
review
available
first
second
trials
every
defendant
thought
evidence
guilt
insufficient
counsels
strongly
exercise
jurisdiction
state
process
permitted
proceed
uninterrupted
fashion
federal
habeas
review
comes
play
postponement
review
case
render
petitioner
double
jeopardy
claim
entirely
nugatory
first
respondent
claim
meritorious
view
ultimately
obtain
relief
conviction
federal
habeas
review
state
proceedings
complete
moreover
claim
meritorious
respondent
likely
acquitted
trial
precisely
insufficiency
commonwealth
evidence
true
course
prosecutor
may
supply
proof
element
offense
omitted
first
trial
reasonable
assume
however
relatively
simple
misdemeanor
prosecutions
employ
procedure
evidence
offered
issue
presented
second
judge
first
likelihood
substance
respondent
claim
heard
vindicated
impending
trial
argues
strongly
federal
intervention
point
proceedings
second
view
prevail
state
prosecutors
aware
sufficiency
evidence
trial
eventually
reviewed
therefore
greater
incentive
adduce
sufficient
evidence
trial
thus
ultimate
availability
federal
collateral
review
reduce
likelihood
constitutional
violation
finally
explains
ante
massachusetts
trial
system
especially
harsh
one
voluntarily
electing
procedure
defendant
accepted
risk
two
trials
insist
upon
one
election
justify
refusal
provide
remedy
constitutional
violation
indicate
enforcement
exhaustion
requirement
case
place
upon
respondent
entirely
unavoidable
obligation
endure
two
trials
balance
think
principles
comity
underlie
exhaustion
abstention
doctrines
make
exercise
federal
habeas
jurisdiction
case
premature
state
interest
avoiding
wholesale
disruption
criminal
process
requires
federal
habeas
postpone
exercise
jurisdiction
case
trial
completed
hold
order
assert
constitutional
claims
respondent
must
first
take
advantage
opportunity
state
provides
acquittal
second
trial
convicted
proceeding
hold
federal
may
review
record
first
trial
determine
whether
constitutionally
entitled
acquittal
record
support
claim
respondent
made
conclude
entitled
release
even
state
adduced
enough
additional
evidence
trial
support
conviction
accordingly
concur
parts
ii
opinion
judgment
see
also
tibbs
florida
verdict
guilty
whether
rendered
jury
directed
trial
judge
absolutely
shields
defendant
retrial
reversal
based
insufficiency
evidence
effect
means
rational
factfinder
voted
convict
defendant
justice
brennan
resists
conclusion
unique
context
massachusetts
trial
system
respondent
selected
system
received
certain
tactical
advantages
result
decision
ante
however
tactical
advantages
justice
brennan
discusses
entirely
illusory
respondent
convicted
even
commonwealth
adduced
insufficient
evidence
trial
massachusetts
system
fair
defendants
acquits
deserve
acquittal
know
whether
respondent
selected
system
known
right
acquitted
trial
even
commonwealth
evidence
incapable
persuading
rational
trier
fact
guilt
surely
respondent
validly
waive
right
acquitted
circumstances
sense
intentionally
relinquishing
known
right
constitution
requires
see
green
see
also
burks
respondent
right
acquittal
failure
proof
trial
must
enforced
quid
pro
quo
justice
brennan
believes
validates
massachusetts
system
realized
moreover
petitioners
concede
justice
brennan
assume
jeopardy
attached
first
witness
respondent
trial
sworn
double
jeopardy
operate
prevent
trial
justice
brennan
analysis
case
explains
ante
double
jeopardy
clause
construed
permit
jeopardy
continue
failure
proof
first
trial
see
burks
failure
proof
hence
burks
justice
brennan
explain
legitimate
interest
retrial
without
valid
reason
continue
jeopardy
commonwealth
constitutionally
subject
respondent
continued
criminal
proceedings
finally
commonwealth
convicted
respondent
insufficient
evidence
trial
trial
fundamentally
unfair
continued
deprivation
respondent
liberty
violative
due
process
refused
tolerate
fundamentally
unfair
trials
simply
fair
trial
provided
see
ward
village
monroeville
availability
trial
de
novo
cure
bias
judge
trial
suggesting
respondent
double
jeopardy
claim
exhausted
agree
reasons
stated
part
opinion
however
claim
exhausted
nevertheless
meritless
unless
antecedent
jackson
claim
may
also
entertained
federal
habeas
claim
true
technical
sense
respondent
may
well
state
remedy
exhaust
inasmuch
massachusetts
courts
indicated
review
respondent
jackson
claim
even
trial
see
ante
brennan
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
however
even
exhaustion
technical
sense
fundamental
policies
underlying
exhaustion
requirement
may
jeopardized
habeas
petition
entertained
state
proceedings
remain
pending
exhaustion
originally
rule
designed
technical
doctrine
rather
prevent
premature
unjustified
interference
state
proceedings
see
ex
parte
hawk
per
curiam
ex
rel
kennedy
tyler
davis
burke
ex
parte
royall
case
pending
approximately
seven
months
district
appeals
another
seven
months
observation
intend
criticism
courts
anything
courts
disposed
case
reasonable
promptness
rather
make
observation
demonstrate
inevitable
delay
whenever
federal
habeas
review
commenced
even
case
adjudicated
commendable
dispatch
doubt
approved
exercise
habeas
jurisdiction
case
district
judges
massachusetts
attempt
minimize
disruption
adjudicating
habeas
cases
quickly
possible
nevertheless
quality
justice
harried
process
bound
suffer
moreover
district
judges
massachusetts
elsewhere
enough
burdens
must
cope
without
additional
time
pressure
created
interlocutory
habeas
cases
one
respondent
appeals
suggest
habeas
review
limited
cases
petitioner
make
strong
initial
showing
likely
constitutional
violation
nevertheless
every
defendant
attempt
make
showing
days
trials
litigation
burden
prosecutors
courts
reduce
quality
justice
surely
prove
impractical
certainly
take
days
obtain
record
transcribe
recording
trial
forcing
state
system
delay
federal
case
adjudicated
case
district
findings
indicate
essential
problem
commonwealth
case
respondent
charged
wrong
offense
problem
remedied
simply
adducing
additional
evidence
trial
justice
concurring
judgment
agree
judgment
appeals
reversed
unlike
however
conclude
district
lacked
jurisdiction
hear
respondent
lydon
habeas
petition
stage
ongoing
proceeding
suggests
federal
habeas
jurisdiction
exists
whenever
state
defendant
subject
minimal
legal
restraints
freedom
ii
defendant
exhausted
state
avenues
relief
respect
particular
federal
claim
brought
habeas
recognizing
unadorned
test
might
greatly
expand
federal
habeas
jurisdiction
ante
emphasizes
unique
nature
double
jeopardy
right
view
first
unnecessarily
expands
holding
hensley
municipal
limits
damage
restricting
exhaustion
analysis
double
jeopardy
claims
prefer
search
principled
understanding
statutory
term
custody
massachusetts
law
read
lydon
longer
custody
pursuant
judgment
entered
first
trial
lydon
invoked
right
second
trial
appeared
second
proceeding
massachusetts
law
therefore
results
first
trial
together
incidental
custody
imposed
consequence
trial
already
eliminated
restraints
lydon
freedom
derive
prior
conviction
fact
new
criminal
proceeding
progress
every
state
defendant
fails
attend
criminal
trial
risks
punitive
sanctions
dissimilar
lydon
currently
exposed
federal
habeas
jurisdiction
plainly
attach
merely
state
criminal
defendant
whose
freedom
come
go
pleases
limited
way
connection
criminal
proceeding
exhausted
state
interlocutory
review
particular
federal
claim
federal
habeas
jurisdiction
absent
custody
connection
ongoing
trial
usually
violation
constitution
laws
treaties
even
proceedings
underlying
charge
constitutionally
defective
constitutional
rights
exist
protect
criminal
defendant
conviction
process
trial
regard
however
agree
double
jeopardy
different
custody
incident
trial
may
violate
constitution
trial
regardless
outcome
unconstitutional
reason
agree
prisoner
incarcerated
connection
criminal
proceeding
custody
violation
constitution
proceeding
violates
double
jeopardy
rights
cf
arizona
washington
agree
minor
restraints
lydon
freedom
incurred
connection
ongoing
state
trial
satisfy
jurisdictional
requirements
habeas
statute
believe
hensley
dictates
different
result
hensley
made
quite
clear
relaxed
definition
custody
accepted
incarceration
imminent
absent
federal
intervention
inevitable
habeas
petitioner
hensley
exhausted
available
state
opportunities
conviction
set
aside
see
also
merely
available
opportunities
review
particular
claim
question
hensley
emphasized
typical
restrictions
freedom
attending
release
personal
recognizance
standing
alone
constitute
custody
within
meaning
habeas
statute
restraints
amount
custody
state
judicial
proceedings
completed
incarceration
become
purely
executory
decision
hensley
accepted
liberal
definition
custody
conjunction
unusual
requirement
absolute
exhaustion
exhaustion
particular
claim
question
cf
possible
state
avenues
relief
conviction
reading
hensley
thus
leads
conclude
state
criminal
defendant
considered
custody
pursuant
judgment
state
physical
restraint
cf
arizona
washington
supra
legal
restraint
converted
physical
restraint
without
judicial
hearing
latter
situation
normally
arise
state
judicial
proceedings
distinguished
particular
claims
raised
proceedings
entirely
exhausted
lydon
condition
clearly
meet
hensley
test
understand
lydon
come
close
exhausting
state
opportunities
conviction
set
aside
lydon
incarcerated
without
judicial
hearing
position
thus
functionally
indistinguishable
defendant
pressing
interlocutory
appeal
one
claim
may
exhausted
others
circumstances
incarceration
far
inevitable
minor
constraints
attend
release
personal
recognizance
much
less
significant
massachusetts
stood
ready
incarcerate
lydon
basis
conviction
first
trial
view
case
different
makes
clear
ante
view
double
jeopardy
claims
unique
federal
habeas
purposes
might
sufficient
reason
bring
claim
within
hensley
rationale
even
specific
claim
exhausted
cf
abney
arizona
washington
supra
braden
judicial
circuit
kentucky
part
prefer
avoid
relaxing
hensley
clear
holding
minimal
constraints
release
personal
recognizance
constitute
custody
state
stands
ready
incarcerate
habeas
petitioner
without
judicial
hearing
special
purpose
jurisdictional
exception
double
jeopardy
allegations
seems
inadvisable
simply
habeas
statute
contains
license
exception
custody
touchstone
relied
possible
unconstitutional
infringements
personal
freedom
unlawful
custody
identified
providing
sufficient
basis
federal
intervention
therefore
hold
state
criminal
defendant
custody
pursuant
judgment
state
remains
free
physical
restraint
state
remains
unable
impose
restraint
without
judicial
hearing
even
habeas
petitioner
physical
custody
may
well
appropriate
federal
abstain
deciding
petition
proceedings
completed