The Oyez Project: Criminal Procedure Issues - Double Jeopardy

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

8 USC section 1326(a) makes it a crime, punishable by up to two years in prison, for a deported alien to return to the United States without special permission. In 1998, Congress added subsection (b)(2), which authorizes a maximum prison term of 20 years for "any alien described" in subsection (a), if the initial "deportation was subsequent to a conviction for commission of an aggravated felony." In 1995, Hugo Almendarez-Torres pleaded guilty to violating section 1326. Ultimately, the District Court sentenced Almendarez-Torres to 85 months' imprisonment. The court rejected his argument that, because his indictment failed to mention his aggravated felony convictions, the court could not sentence him to more than the maximum sentence authorized by section 1326(a). In affirming, the Court of Appeals held that subsection (b)(2) is a penalty provision which permits the imposition of a higher sentence when the unlawfully returning alien also has a record of prior convictions.

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

John Hudson was chairman of the First National Bank of Tipton and the First National Bank of Hammon. Hudson used his position to regain bank stock he had used as collateral on defaulted loans through a series of bank loans to other parties. Upon investigation the Office of the Comptroller of Currency (OCC) found that the loans were made in violation of several banking statues and regulations. The OCC fined and debarred Hudson for the violations. Later, he faced criminal indictment in federal District Court for violations tied to those same events. Hudson objected, arguing that the indictment violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit eventually found for the Government in light of United States v. Halper on the grounds that the original proceedings were civil in nature and not so disproportional to the proven damages to the Government as to qualify as a form of criminal punishment.

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

Angel Jaime Monge was convicted on three counts of violating California's drug laws, all felonies. Under California's "three-strikes" law a convicted felon with one prior felony conviction will have his prison term doubled. The state sought to have Monge's sentence enhanced based on a previous assault conviction and the resulting prison term. Subsequently the California trial court doubled his sentence and added a one-year enhancement for the prior prison term. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal ruled that the evidence was insufficient to trigger the sentence enhancement because the prior conviction allegations were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, a retrial to substantiate the allegations would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The California Supreme Court reversed the double jeopardy ruling, holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause, though applicable in the capital sentencing context, does not extend to noncapital sentencing proceedings.

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

When David Sattazahn's penalty-phase jury reported to the trial judge that it was hopelessly deadlocked 9-to-3 for life imprisonment, the court discharged the jury and entered a life sentence, as required under Pennsylvania law. On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed Sattazahn's first-degree murder conviction and remanded for a new trial. At the second trial, Pennsylvania again sought the death penalty and the jury again convicted Sattazahn, but this time the jury imposed a death sentence. In affirming, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that neither the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause nor the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause barred Pennsylvania from seeking the death penalty at the retrial.

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

Melvin T. Smith was tried in for illegal possession of a firearm, among other offenses. During the trial the judge ruled Smith was not guilty because the state failed to introduce direct evidence of the gun's length - therefore not proving the gun Smith possessed met the statutory definition of a firearm. The state later pointed to the state supreme court's ruling that testimony that a gun was a pistol or revolver was sufficient evidence to allow a firearm charge to go to the jury. Because a witness had testified that Smith's gun was a pistol, the judge reversed and sent the possession charge to the jury.

Smith appealed and argued the judge's reversal of the not guilty ruling on the possession charge violated the Fifth Amendment's doubly jeopardy clause, which prohibited successive prosecutions. The state court of appeals rejected Smith's argument and ruled no Fifth Amendment violation occurred because the judge's reversal did not require a second proceeding.

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

Irwin Halper, the manager of a company that provided medical services to patients eligible for Medicare benefits, was charged and convicted in criminal court of submitting 65 separate false Medicare claims. He was sentenced to two years in prison and fined $5,000.

The United States then brought additional civil charges under the False Claims Act, which authorized it to collect $2000 for each offense in addition to attorney's fees and twice the damages sustained. In this case the actual damages were just $585, but because of the number of offenses the total penalty was more than $130,000. The District Court, however, ruled that the penalty was "entirely unrelated" to the government's actual damages and would therefore be a second punishment for the same offense, violating the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The penalty was therefore limited to double the amount of actual damages and attorney's fees. The government appealed the decision directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

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

Alleging that Ursery manufactured marijuana on his property, the United States government initiated criminal proceedings against Ursery and began civil forfeiture proceedings against his property. On appeal from his conviction in District Court, the Court of Appeals reversed on double-jeopardy grounds. The government then initiated a second set of proceedings against Ursery's property, which was reversed on new double-jeopardy grounds. The government appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

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.