1 Tyl. 178
Decided June 15, 1801
Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1801-06-15
THIS was an indictment for forgery. The defendant shewed in evidence a complete defence. Mr. Attorney now moved to enter a nolle prosequi. We apprehend a nolle prosequi cannot be pleaded in bar to a subsequent indictment for the same offence. We consider our defence so ample and conclusive, that we are entitled to a verdict, and entry of judgment, eat sine die, that by plea of auterfoits acquit, we may be enabled to set this illiberal prosecution for ever at rest.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1880
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1801-06-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1We consider the State Attorney’s prerogative of entering a nolle prosequi to be'suspended while the cause is in issue to the Jury. He cannot then enter without leave of Court.
¶2The defence here is ample and honourable to the accused. He is entitled to a verdict. Let the trial proceed.
¶3The Jury returned a verdict of non out. and defendant was discharged.