Smith v. United States (2023)

In 2018, Smith discovered StrikeLines, a Florida company that used sonar equipment to detect artificial reefs constructed to attract fish.When contacted by StrikeLines, Smith offered to remove social media posts regarding the company on the condition that, in exchange, they disclose to him the coordinates of certain "deep grouper spots" that he had been unable to obtain from the website.Justice Alito begins his opinion by outlining the Court's longstanding rule stating that defendants who have had their convictions reversed may typically be retried on the same charges.Additionally, criticizes Smith's argument that the clause is intended to prevent logistical difficulties present when a case is tried in the improper venue.In his survey of the common law (and of the years immediately following the adoption of the Constitution), he finds no example of a court barring retrial based on a successful venue or vicinage objection.Alito concludes his opinion by stating that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude the possibility for retrial in the case of venue or vicinage objections.
Supreme Court of the United StatesJohn RobertsClarence ThomasSamuel AlitoSonia SotomayorElena KaganNeil GorsuchBrett KavanaughAmy Coney BarrettKetanji Brown JacksonU.S. Const. Art. IIIamends. VUnited States Supreme CourtArticle IIISixth AmendmentMobile, AlabamaSouthern District of AlabamaGulf of MexicoFloridaPensacolaNorthern District of FloridaOrlandoMiddle District of FloridagrouperVicinage ClauseUnited States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh CircuitSpeedy Trial ClauseDouble Jeopardy ClauseUnited States Fifth Amendmentcriminal procedureGrand JuryHurtado v. CaliforniaEx parte BainWong Wing v. United StatesMaxwell v. DowUnited States v. MorelandBeck v. WashingtonUnited States v. CottonBlockburger v. United StatesGrady v. CorbinUnited States v. FelixUnited States v. DixonUnited States v. RandenbushBurton v. United StatesFong Foo v. United StatesAshe v. SwensonBurks v. United StatesEvans v. MichiganBravo-Fernandez v. United StatesMcElrath v. GeorgiaUnited States v. WilsonLudwig v. MassachusettsUnited States v. PerezUnited States v. JornUnited States v. DinitzOregon v. KennedyBlueford v. ArkansasBartkus v. IllinoisWaller v. FloridaUnited States v. WheelerHeath v. AlabamaUnited States v. LaraPuerto Rico v. Sanchez ValleGamble v. United StatesDenezpi v. United StatesEx parte BigelowPalko v. ConnecticutLouisiana ex rel. Francis v. ResweberBaxstrom v. HeroldNorth Carolina v. PearceBenton v. MarylandSelf-Incrimination ClauseUnited States v. SullivanGriffin v. CaliforniaMiranda v. ArizonaWilliams v. FloridaEdwards v. ArizonaOregon v. ElstadIllinois v. PerkinsMcNeil v. WisconsinMitchell v. United StatesUnited States v. HubbellDickerson v. United StatesChavez v. MartinezYarborough v. AlvaradoMissouri v. SeibertUnited States v. PataneFlorida v. PowellMaryland v. ShatzerBerghuis v. ThompkinsJ. D. B. v. North CarolinaBobby v. DixonHowes v. FieldsSalinas v. TexasVega v. TekohUnited States Sixth AmendmentKlopfer v. North CarolinaBarker v. WingoDoggett v. United StatesBetterman v. MontanaPublic TrialIn re OliverPresley v. GeorgiaCheff v. SchnackenbergDuncan v. LouisianaBlanton v. City of North Las VegasReynolds v. United StatesGlasser v. United StatesIrvin v. DowdSheppard v. MaxwellWitherspoon v. IllinoisHam v. South CarolinaAdams v. TexasWainwright v. WittMorgan v. IllinoisSkilling v. United StatesMcDonnell v. United StatesUnited States v. TsarnaevWalton v. ArizonaAlmendarez-Torres v. United StatesJones v. United StatesApprendi v. New JerseyRing v. ArizonaBlakely v. WashingtonSchriro v. SummerlinUnited States v. BookerWashington v. RecuencoCunningham v. CaliforniaOregon v. IceSouthern Union Co. v. United StatesAlleyne v. United StatesHurst v. FloridaUnited States v. HaymondErlinger v. United StatesRassmussen v. United StatesApodaca v. OregonBallew v. GeorgiaBurch v. LouisianaRamos v. LouisianaEdwards v. VannoyUnited States v. DawsonTanner v. United StatesWarger v. ShauersPeña-Rodriguez v. ColoradoRabe v. WashingtonConfrontation ClauseDowdell v. United StatesPointer v. TexasBruton v. United StatesFrazier v. CuppIllinois v. AllenOhio v. RobertsCrawford v. WashingtonDavis v. WashingtonWhorton v. BocktingGiles v. CaliforniaMelendez-Diaz v. MassachusettsMichigan v. BryantBullcoming v. New MexicoWilliams v. IllinoisOhio v. ClarkHemphill v. New YorkSamia v. United StatesSmith v. ArizonaMaryland v. CraigChambers v. MississippiCompulsory Process ClauseWashington v. TexasUnited States v. Valenzuela-BernalTaylor v. IllinoisAssistance of Counsel ClauseUnited States v. Gonzalez-LopezPowell v. AlabamaJohnson v. ZerbstBetts v. BradyHamilton v. AlabamaGideon v. WainwrightAnders v. CaliforniaArgersinger v. HamlinGagnon v. ScarpelliFuller v. OregonScott v. IllinoisPennsylvania v. FinleyNichols v. United StatesAlabama v. SheltonIneffective assistanceStrickland v. WashingtonNix v. WhitesideKimmelman v. MorrisonLockhart v. FretwellWilliams v. TaylorGlover v. United StatesBell v. ConeWoodford v. VisciottiWiggins v. SmithHolland v. JacksonWright v. Van PattenBobby v. Van HookWong v. BelmontesPorter v. McCollumPadilla v. KentuckySears v. UptonPremo v. MooreLafler v. CooperBuck v. DavisGarza v. IdahoShinn v. RamirezMassiah v. United StatesBrewer v. WilliamsPro seFaretta v. CaliforniaMcKaskle v. WigginsRock v. ArkansasMartinez v. Court of Appeal of CaliforniaIndiana v. Edwards