Matter of Whitehead v. Vizzie

1 Citing case

  1. In re Michael Hoffler

    72 A.D.3d 1183 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 9 times

    Preliminarily, we note that a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking a writ of prohibition is a proper mechanism to raise a claim that retrial is barred by double jeopardy principles ( see Matter of Di Lorenzo v Murtagh, 36 NY2d 306, 309-310; Matter of Stewart v Hartnett, 34 AD3d 1134, 1136, appeal dismissed 8 NY3d 936). Nonetheless, a petitioner must "demonstrate a clear right to [such] extraordinary remedy" ( Matter of Bairn v Eidens, 279 AD2d 787, 789) and the absence of an adequate remedy at law ( see Matter of Newfield Cent. School Dist. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 66 AD3d 1314, 1315; Rafferty v Owens, 82 AD2d 582, 585; see also Matter of Whitehead v Vizzie, 223 AD2d 938). The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against repeated prosecutions for the same criminal offense after an acquittal or a conviction ( see US Const 5th, 14th Amends; NY Const. art I, ยง 6; CPL 40.20 et seq.; People v Gonzalez, 99 NY2d 76, 82).