Wilkinson v. Gingrich, No. 13-56952 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePetitioner was convicted of perjury for testifying in a traffic court proceeding that he was not the driver of a car that had been stopped for speeding and whose driver had been ticketed. On appeal, the State challenged the district court's grant of petitioner's habeas corpus petition. The court agreed with the district court that the state appellate court unreasonably applied Ashe v. Swenson when it held that petitioner’s acquittal in traffic court did not bar the subsequent perjury prosecution. The court held that the principle of collateral estoppel embodied in the Fifth Amendment’s protection against double jeopardy, as clearly established in Ashe, precludes relitigation of ultimate issues that were necessarily decided in a prior proceeding between the parties. The traffic court necessarily decided that petitioner was not the driver of the speeding car. This issue was critical to both the traffic court and perjury proceedings. Therefore, the State is precluded by the Double Jeopardy Clause from bringing the perjury prosecution. The court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment granting James Kendell Wilkinson’s habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction for perjury for testifying in a traffic court proceeding that he was not the driver of a car that had been stopped for speeding and whose driver had been ticketed. The State of California brought the perjury prosecution after Wilkinson was acquitted of the speeding offense. The panel agreed with the district court that the state appellate court unreasonably applied Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970), when it held that Wilkinson’s acquittal in traffic court did not bar the subsequent perjury prosecution. The panel held that the traffic court necessarily decided, in Wilkinson’s favor, an issue that was critical to both the traffic court and perjury proceedings—that Wilkinson was not the driver of the speeding car—and that the State was therefore precluded by the Double Jeopardy Clause from bringing the perjury prosecution.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on November 3, 2015.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.