Case Citator › Diaz v. United States

Diaz v. United States

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Declined by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
223 U.S. 442
Decided
Confirmed treatments
3
Flagged citations read
37 of 37
Citing cases (total)
37
Treatment dates
1974–1992
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. Diaz v. United States has been declined in part: all 37 flagged citations have been read, and the 3 confirmed treatments are listed below. Two district courts rejected its statement that a first court's limited jurisdiction prevents a double-jeopardy bar.
More on how this was screened

The Ninth Circuit allowed a capital defendant to waive attendance at jury selection, treating Diaz's contrary statement about capital trials as dictum. Other courts continued to apply Diaz's holdings on later homicide, confrontation, and voluntary absence from noncapital trials.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

37 later cases cite Diaz v. United States; 37 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Diaz v. United States?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Declined to follow

  • A Tennessee district court rejected Diaz's limited-jurisdiction statement and held that a state cannot avoid double jeopardy by prosecuting included offenses in separate courts.

    Pettyjohn v. Evatt · E.D. Tennessee · filed

    Diaz is not persuasive in this regard because this issue was not then before the Supreme Court. . . . This Court is of the opinion that states may not, by the device of creating courts of limited jurisdiction, avoid the constitutional mandate against placing a person twice in jeopardy for the same offense.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • A New Mexico district court rejected Diaz's limited-jurisdiction exception to double jeopardy where the state prosecuted the same offense in separate courts.

    Salaz v. Tansy · D. New Mexico · filed

    The Court also held that because the lower court was without jurisdiction to try the petitioner for homicide, jeopardy did not extend to an offense beyond the court’s jurisdiction. Although this “jurisdictional exception” adopted in Diaz has not been overruled explicitly, it is inconsistent with more recent United States Supreme Court decisions establishing that successive prosecutions in different courts of the same state violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. ... In light of the United States Supreme Court decisions which imply that the “jurisdictional exception” is no longer viable, New Mexico may not allow two courts within the State to place a defendant on trial for the same offense in violation of the double jeopardy clause.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Ninth Circuit treated Diaz's capital-trial statement as dictum and permitted a capital defendant to waive his due process right to attend jury selection.

    Campbell v. Blodgett · Ninth Circuit · filed

    The defendant's right to be present during the trial on a capital offense has been said to be so fundamental that it may not be waived. Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 455 [32 S.Ct. 250, 253, 56 L.Ed. 500] (1912) (dictum); ... We thus must consider whether the rule allowing voluntary waiver is applicable to capital cases. ... We conclude that allowing the defendant this choice in a capital case does not offend due process.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Diaz v. United States and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace