Case Citator › Stroud v. United States

Stroud 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
251 U.S. 15
Decided
Confirmed treatments
3
Flagged citations read
28 of 28
Citing cases (total)
28
Treatment dates
1963–2012
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. Stroud v. United States drew a refusal to follow its capital-sentence rationale, criticism of its appeal-as-consent reasoning, and a later limit on its retrial rule; three treatments are listed below. The Supreme Court declined to overrule Stroud in Chaffin v. Stynchcombe (1973) and cited its federal double-jeopardy rule approvingly in Monge v. California (1998).
More on how this was screened

Stroud's separate holdings on prison letters, venue, and juror challenges also continued to be applied. All 28 flagged citations have been read.

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.

28 later cases cite Stroud v. United States; 28 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 Stroud 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

  • The Supreme Court of California rejected Stroud's rationale for allowing a death sentence on retrial after an earlier first-degree murder conviction had carried life imprisonment.

    People v. Henderson · Supreme Court of California · filed

    Since the Green and Gomez cases have now established that a reversed conviction of a lesser degree of a crime precludes conviction of a higher degree on retrial, the rationale of the Stroud and Grill cases has been vitiated. It is immaterial to the basic purpose of the constitutional provision against double jeopardy whether the Legislature divides a crime into different degrees carrying different punishments or allows the court or jury to fix different punishments for the same crime.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Criticized

  • The Supreme Court of Oregon rejected the appeal-as-consent reasoning it attributed to Stroud while deciding whether to permit a harsher sentence after a successful appeal.

    State v. Turner · Supreme Court of Oregon · filed

    Stroud v. United States, 251 US 15, 40 S Ct 50, 64 L ed 103 (1919), holding that such procedure does not violate the federal constitutional ban on double jeopardy. ... Apparently, as a further ground for its decision, the court observed: “[T]hus the plaintiff in error himself invoked the action of the court which resulted in a further trial.” 251 US at 18. ... Likewise, we cannot find any merit in the argument that the defendant “asked” for his second sentence as the defendant was the person who instituted the appeal or sought post-conviction relief.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The military court declined to extend Stroud's full-retrial rule to a rehearing at which the prosecution needed to prove only one element of the offense.

    United States v. Walker · Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · filed

    Stroud v. United States, 251 U.S. 15, 40 S.Ct. 50, 64 L.Ed. 103 (1919); and United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 16 S.Ct. 1192, 41 L.Ed. 300 (1896). In each of these retrials, the Government presented evidence on every element of the recharged offense. In none of them, nor in any precedent we could find, was the Government permitted a retrial in which it could explain to the fact finder that all elements, save one, were to be resolved as a matter of law. ... In the absence of any precedent supporting such a policy extension, we conclude that it does not.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Stroud 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