Mincey v. Arizona

Summary

This is a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Rehnquist denying an application to stay the retrial of a defendant on murder and assault charges pending certiorari. The applicant argued that evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights would be admitted at trial. The Court held that such evidentiary claims can be adequately vindicated through normal post-trial review, so a stay of the trial is not warranted.

Holdings

1. A stay of retrial is not warranted when the constitutional claims concern the admission of evidence, because such claims can be vindicated through post-trial review and do not implicate the Double Jeopardy Clause's protection against a second trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of his retrial pending disposition of his petition for certiorari.

Disposition

other