The Oyez Project: Criminal Procedure Issues - Double Jeopardy Decisions

Abbate v. United States

No details yet.

Abney v. United States

No details yet.

Alabama v. Smith

No details yet.

Albernaz v. United States

No details yet.

Almendarez-Torres v. United States

Does subsection (b)(2) of 8 USC section 1326(a), which forbids an alien who once was deported to return to the United States without special permission, define a separate crime?

No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court held that subsection (b)(2) of 8 USC section 1326(a) is a penalty provision, which authorizes a court to increase the sentence for a recidivist, and does not define a separate crime. "[W]e note that the relevant statutory subject matter is recidivism," wrote Justice Breyer, "[t]hat subject matter -- prior commission of a serious crime -- is as typical a sentencing factor as one might imagine." Therefore, neither subsection (b)(2) nor the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment required that the government charge a prior aggravated felony conviction in the alien's indictment for the imposition of a sentence more than 2 years.

Arizona v. Rumsey

No details yet.

Arizona v. Washington

No details yet.

Ashe v. Swenson

No details yet.

Bartkus v. Illinois

No details yet.

Benton v. Maryland

No details yet.

Brown v. Ohio

No details yet.

Bullington v. Missouri

No details yet.

Burks v. United States

No details yet.

Cichos v. Indiana

No details yet.

Ciucci v. Illinois

No details yet.

Department Of Revenue Of Montana v. Kurth Ranch

No details yet.

Dowling v. United States

No details yet.

Downum v. United States

No details yet.

Duncan v. Tennessee

No details yet.

Fong Foo v. United States

No details yet.

Forman v. United States

No details yet.

Fugate v. New Mexico

No details yet.

Garrett v. United States

No details yet.

Gore v. United States

No details yet.

Gori v. United States

No details yet.

Grady v. Corbin

No details yet.

Green v. United States

No details yet.

Greene v. Massey

No details yet.

Harris v. United States

No details yet.

Heath v. Alabama

No details yet.

Hoag v. New Jersey

No details yet.

Hudson v. Louisiana

No details yet.

Hudson v. United States

Are punitive fines and debarment by the Office of the Comptroller of Currency a sufficiently "criminal" form of punishment that a subsequent criminal indictment for the same violations would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

No. In a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Supreme Court upheld the Tenth Circuit's decision based on the distinction made in United States v. Ward between criminal and civil punishments. The Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply to non-criminal penalties, even if the purpose of the penalty is to punish the offenders and deter future offenders. Since the first punishment handed down by the OCC - a Federal Banking Agency, not a court - was not a criminal punishment, the subsequent indictments were upheld.

Illinois v. Somerville

No details yet.

Illinois v. Vitale

No details yet.

Jeffers v. United States

No details yet.

Jones v. Thomas

No details yet.

Justices Of Boston Municipal Court v. Lydon

No details yet.

Koller v. United States

No details yet.

Lee v. United States

No details yet.

Lockhart v. Nelson

No details yet.

Michigan v. Payne

No details yet.

Missouri v. Hunter

No details yet.

Monge v. California

Does the Double Jeopardy Clause preclude retrial on a prior conviction allegation in noncapital sentencing proceedings?

No. In a 5-4 decision, announced by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not protect convicted criminals from a second sentencing proceeding in noncapital cases. State prosecutors can try a second time to convince a court to impose an enhanced sentence under a state's "three-strikes" law.

Moon v. Maryland

No details yet.

Morris v. Mathews

No details yet.

North Carolina v. Pearce

No details yet.

Ohio v. Johnson

No details yet.

Oregon v. Kennedy

No details yet.

Poland v. Arizona

No details yet.

Pollard v. United States

No details yet.

Price v. Georgia

No details yet.

Rex Trailer Co. v. United States

No details yet.

Richardson v. United States

No details yet.

Ricketts v. Adamson

No details yet.

Rinaldi v. United States

No details yet.

Sanabria v. United States

No details yet.

Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania

Does either the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause bar a state from seeking the death penalty upon retrial where a statutory life sentence for murder was imposed after the jury was unable to agree on a sentence?

No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that there was neither a Double Jeopardy Clause nor a Due Process Clause bar to Pennsylvania's seeking the death penalty on retrial. The Court reasoned that the death sentence on retrial did not implicate a double jeopardy bar because the life sentence at issue did not amount to an acquittal based on findings sufficient to establish legal entitlement to the life sentence or that the government failed to prove one or more aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court also refused to hold that the Due Process Clause provides greater double-jeopardy protection than does the Double Jeopardy Clause. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, and Stephen G. Breyer, joined.

Schiro v. Farley, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison

No details yet.

Serfass v. United States

No details yet.

Smalis v. Pennsylvania

No details yet.

Smith v. Massachusetts

Is the double jeopardy clause's prohibition against successive prosecutions, found in the Fifth Amendment, violated when a judge rules that the defendant is not guilty because the government's evidence is insufficient but later in the trial reverses her finding of not guilty?

Yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the double jeopardy clause barred the judge from reconsidering the acquittal on the firearm charge later in the trial. Smith was subjected to successive prosecutions because, according to Court precedent, the midtrial ruling was an acquittal and the submission of the count to the jury was a further proceeding dealing with guilt or innocence. While the double jeopardy clause did allow states to create a procedure for reconsidering a midtrial determination of insufficiency of proof, Massachusetts had no such procedure at the time of Smith's trial.

Texas v. Mccullough

No details yet.

Thigpen v. Roberts

No details yet.

Tibbs v. Florida

No details yet.

United States v. Broce

No details yet.

United States v. Difrancesco

No details yet.

United States v. Dinitz

No details yet.

United States v. Dixon

No details yet.

United States v. Felix

No details yet.

United States v. Halper

Where the penalty authorized under the False Claims Act is "entirely unrelated" to the damages actually suffered by the government, does imposition of the penalty amount to a "punishment" governed by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment?

Yes. Justice Harry Blackmun, on behalf of a unanimous Supreme Court, wrote that while previous cases had held penalties under the Act to be civil in nature, that did not foreclose the possibility of the penalty being so extreme and so unrelated to the actual damages as to constitute "punishment." Because Halper had already been jailed and fined, additional punishment in a separate proceeding would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court remanded the case to the District Court so that the government could challenge the original assessment of its attorney's fees.

United States v. Jenkins

No details yet.

United States v. Jorn

No details yet.

United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co.

No details yet.

United States v. One Assortment Of 89 Firearms

No details yet.

United States v. Scott

No details yet.

United States v. Tateo

No details yet.

United States v. Ursery

Do civil property forfeitures ("in rem" forfeiture) constitute a "punishment" in terms of the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause which forbids successive prosecutions and punishment for the same crime?

No. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, in an 8-to-1 decision, held that civil property forfeitures did not constitute a "punishment" for purposes of the double jeopardy clause. While the double jeopardy clause protects a defendant from being punished twice for the same offense, criminal and civil sanctions for the same offense are distinguishable. The civil property forfeiture is a remedial civil sanction not a punitive criminal "punishment." Applying a two-part test to determine if a forfeiture constitutes a "punishment" in terms of the double jeopardy clause, the Court held that it was both Congress's intention that property forfeitures be civil in nature and that they be remedial rather than punitive. The mere resemblance between Ursery's property forfeiture and criminal drug and money-laundering punishments, did not constitute the "clearest proof" that Congress did not intend to levy both civil and criminal sanctions on Ursery's conduct. Furthermore, property forfeiture's non-punitive remedial nature is also evident in its goal of encouraging owners to care for their property by guarding against its illegal usage.

United States v. Wheeler

No details yet.

United States v. Wilson

No details yet.

Waller v. Florida

No details yet.

Whalen v. United States

No details yet.

Williams v. Oklahoma

No details yet.

Witte v. United States

No details yet.