Taking back an acquittal
Patrick Jay Sullivan v. Minnesota
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Patrick Jay Sullivan challenged a Minnesota court’s later restoration of his conviction after it had entered an acquittal and set aside the conviction during postconviction proceedings.
- Who it affects
- Sullivan did not get Supreme Court review, and the denial did not decide whether restoring his conviction violated the protection against double jeopardy.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court refused to hear his petition (denied it), so it did not decide whether restoring the conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
The dispute concerns what a court may do after setting aside a conviction and entering an acquittal during postconviction proceedings.
Question presented
When a court enters an acquittal on the merits and vacates a conviction during postconviction proceedings, may the same court later take back the acquittal on the merits and “reinstate” the conviction without running afoul of the Double Jeopardy Clause?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.