Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Lamar Evans, Petitioner v. Michigan

• 2012 • 568 U.S. 313 • Roberts Court
In the case of Lamar Evans v. Michigan, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Evans who was initially charged with burning a dwelling house in Michigan state court. The prosecution erroneously based its charge on a non-existent legal offense - "attempted" arson of a dwelling house (the building was not legally considered as such). After realizing their mistake post-acquittal, they sought to retry him for committing actual arson under correct statutory provisions. However, Evans argued...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Roberts Court
Term: 2012
Docket: 11-1327
568 U.S. 313
133 S. Ct. 1069
185 L. Ed. 2d 124
2013 U.S. LEXIS 1614
Argued: Nov 06, 2012

Lamar Evans, Petitioner v. Michigan

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Questions presented:
SCOTUS Records

11-1327 EVANS V. MICHIGAN DECISION BELOW: 491 Mich. 1 CERT. GRANTED 6/11/2012 QUESTION PRESENTED: Does the Double Jeopardy Clause bar retrial after the trial judge erroneously holds a particular fact to be an element of the offense and then grants a midtrial directed verdict of acquittal because the prosecution failed to prove that fact? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 141381

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Lamar Evans v. Michigan, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Evans who was initially charged with burning a dwelling house in Michigan state court. The prosecution erroneously based its charge on a non-existent legal offense - "attempted" arson of a dwelling house (the building was not legally considered as such). After realizing their mistake post-acquittal, they sought to retry him for committing actual arson under correct statutory provisions. However, Evans argued that this retrial would violate his Fifth Amendment right against double jeopardy which prevents an individual from being tried twice for the same crime after acquittal or conviction. The Supreme Court agreed with Evans' argument and held that because he had been acquitted by law once already due to insufficient proof at trial (even if it was based on an error), he could not be retried again even under corrected charges related to the same incident. This decision upheld principles of finality and respect for juries’ verdicts while also preventing prosecutors from having multiple attempts at convicting defendants.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Lamar Evans v. Michigan, Justice Alito argued that a defendant cannot be retried after an acquittal, even if the acquittal was based on an error of law made by the judge during trial proceedings. He contended that this principle is deeply ingrained in American jurisprudence and serves as a safeguard against government oppression through repeated prosecutions. The majority's decision to allow re-prosecution in cases where judges make errors regarding elements of offenses not included in state law undermines this protection and could lead to potential abuses of power by prosecutors who might use it as a tool for harassment or intimidation. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes an "acquittal", arguing that any ruling which terminates a case in favor of the defendant should qualify regardless of whether it was correct according to statutory definitions.

Opinion written by Justice SSotomayor
Decided: Feb 20, 2013
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms