Cases by Issue - Double Jeopardy

Smith v. Massachusetts

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:46:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

03-8661

Petitioner

Melvin T. Smith

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Massachusetts

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

543 U.S. 462 (2005)

Granted

Monday, June 14, 2004

Argued

Wednesday, December 1, 2004

Decided

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

Advocates

Cathryn A. Neaves (argued the cause for Respondent)

David J. Nathanson (argued the cause for Petitioner)

Sri Srinivasan (argued the cause for Respondent, on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Smith, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

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.

Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:54:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

01-7574

Petitioner

Sattazahn

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pennsylvania

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

537 U.S. 101 (2003)

Argued

Monday, November 4, 2002

Decided

Tuesday, January 14, 2003

Advocates

Sri Srinivasan (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondent)

Iva C. Dougherty (Reading, Pennsylvania, argued the cause for the respondent)

Robert B. Dunham (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Pennsylvania, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

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.

Monge v. California

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:51 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

97-6146

Petitioner

Monge

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

524 U.S. 721 (1998)

Argued

Tuesday, April 28, 1998

Decided

Friday, June 26, 1998

Advocates

Matthew D. Roberts (On behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the respondent)

Clifford Gardner (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

David F. Glassman (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for California, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

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.

Almendarez-Torres v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

96-6839

Petitioner

Almendarez-Torres

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

523 U.S. 224 (1998)

Argued

Tuesday, October 14, 1997

Decided

Tuesday, March 24, 1998

Advocates

Beth S. Brinkmann (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the respondent)

Peter M. Fleury (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 8 U.S.C. 1326

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.

Hudson v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:09 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

96-976

Petitioner

Hudson et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

522 U.S. 93 (1997)

Argued

Wednesday, October 8, 1997

Decided

Wednesday, December 10, 1997

Advocates

Bernard J. Rothbaum (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Michael R. Dreeben (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

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.

United States v. Ursery

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:28 +0000

Location

Eastern District Court of Michigan

231 W. Lafayette Blvd. Detroit MI 48226

Detroit, MI 48226

United States

42° 19' 49.3356" N, 83° 2' 58.2432" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

95-345

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ursery

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 95-346

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

518 U.S. 267 (1996)

Argued

Wednesday, April 17, 1996

Decided

Monday, June 24, 1996

Advocates

Lawrence S. Robbins (Argued the cause for respondent Ursery)

Jeffry K. Finer (Argued the cause for respondents $405,089.23 et al)

Michael R. Dreeben (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

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.

Witte v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:30 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

94-6187

Petitioner

Witte

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

515 U.S. 389 (1995)

Argued

Monday, April 17, 1995

Decided

Wednesday, June 14, 1995

Advocates

H. Michael Sokolow (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Edward C. DuMont (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Department Of Revenue Of Montana v. Kurth Ranch

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:16:46 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

93-144

Petitioner

Department Of Revenue Of Montana

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kurth Ranch et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Opinion

511 U.S. 767 (1994)

Argued

Wednesday, January 19, 1994

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1994

Advocates

Paul Van Tricht (on behalf of the Petitioner)

James A. Feldman (as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner)

James H. Goetz (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Kurth Ranch, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Schiro v. Farley, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:16:48 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-7549

Petitioner

Schiro

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Farley, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison, et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Opinion

510 U.S. 222 (1994)

Argued

Monday, November 1, 1993

Decided

Wednesday, January 19, 1994

Advocates

Monica Foster (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Arend J. Abel (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Farley, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

United States v. Dixon

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:15 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1231

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dixon et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 688 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, December 2, 1992

Decided

Monday, June 28, 1993

Advocates

William C. Bryson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

James W. Klein (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Dixon, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

Split Vote

None

United States v. Felix

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:06 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1599

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Felix

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 378 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, January 14, 1992

Decided

Wednesday, March 25, 1992

Advocates

William C. Bryson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Scott M. Anderson (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Grady v. Corbin

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:22 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-474

Petitioner

Grady

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Corbin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 508 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, March 21, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1990

Advocates

Bridget R. Steller (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Richard T. Farrell (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Corbin, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Dowling v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:51 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-6025

Petitioner

Dowling

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 342 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, October 4, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, January 10, 1990

Advocates

Stephen L. Nightingale (on behalf of the Respondent)

Robert L. Tucker (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Jones v. Thomas

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-420

Petitioner

Jones

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Thomas

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 376 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, April 26, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 19, 1989

Advocates

Springfield Baldwin (on behalf of the Respondent)

Stephen D. Hawke (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Jones, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Alabama v. Smith

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:13 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-333

Petitioner

Alabama

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Smith

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 794 (1989)

Argued

Monday, April 24, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1989

Advocates

P. David Bjurberg (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Delores R. Boyd (on behalf of the Respondent)

Paul J. Larkin, Jr. (amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Alabama, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

United States v. Halper

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:14 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1383

Petitioner

Halper

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 435 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, January 17, 1989

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1989

Advocates

Michael R. Dreeben (Argued the cause for the United States)

John G. Roberts, Jr. (Argued the cause as amicus curiae in support of the decision below)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Halper, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

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. Broce

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:21 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1190

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Broce

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

488 U.S. 563 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, October 4, 1988

Decided

Monday, January 23, 1989

Advocates

Roy T. Englert, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Glenn E. Casebeer, III (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Lockhart v. Nelson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:16 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1277

Petitioner

Lockhart

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nelson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

488 U.S. 33 (1988)

Argued

Monday, October 3, 1988

Decided

Monday, November 14, 1988

Advocates

J. Steven Clark (on behalf of the Petitioner)

John Wesley Hall, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Lockhart, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Ricketts v. Adamson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:32 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-6

Petitioner

Ricketts

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Adamson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 1 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, April 1, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1987

Advocates

Roy T. Englert, Jr. (as amicus curiae, supporting Petitioners)

William J. Schafer III (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Timothy K. Ford (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Ricketts, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Smalis v. Pennsylvania

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:19 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-227

Petitioner

Smalis

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pennsylvania

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

476 U.S. 140 (1986)

Argued

Wednesday, April 2, 1986

Decided

Monday, May 5, 1986

Advocates

Robert L. Eberhardt (on behalf of Respondents)

Norma Chase (on behalf of Petitioners)

Andrew L. Frey (for United States, as amicus curiae in support of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Smalis, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Poland v. Arizona

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-5023

Petitioner

Poland

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arizona

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 85-5024

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

476 U.S. 147 (1986)

Argued

Monday, February 24, 1986

Decided

Monday, May 5, 1986

Advocates

Gerald R. Grant (on behalf of the respondent)

W.K. Wilhelmsen (on behalf of the petitioners, appointed by this Court)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Arizona, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Texas v. Mccullough

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:14 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1198

Petitioner

Texas

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mccullough

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

475 U.S. 134 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, December 10, 1985

Decided

Wednesday, February 26, 1986

Advocates

Jeff Blackburn (on behalf of the Respondent)

Randall L. Sherrod (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Texas, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Morris v. Mathews

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:19 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1636

Petitioner

Morris

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mathews

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

475 U.S. 237 (1986)

Argued

Monday, November 4, 1985

Decided

Wednesday, February 26, 1986

Advocates

Michael G. Dane (on behalf of the Respondents)

Richard David Drake (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Morris, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Heath v. Alabama

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:27 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-5555

Petitioner

Heath

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alabama

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

474 U.S. 82 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, October 9, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, December 3, 1985

Advocates

William Duncan Little, III (on behalf of the respondent)

Ronald J. Allen (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Alabama, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Fugate v. New Mexico

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:28 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-6663

Petitioner

Fugate

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New Mexico

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 904 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, February 19, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, March 26, 1985

Advocates

Paul G. Bardacke (on behalf of Respondent)

J. Thomas Sullivan (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for New Mexico, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Garrett v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:22 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1842

Petitioner

Garrett

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 773 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, January 16, 1985

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1985

Advocates

Philip A. DeMassa (on behalf of Petitioner)

Mark I. Levy (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 21 U.S.C. 848

None

Ohio v. Johnson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:02 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-904

Petitioner

Ohio

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Johnson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 493 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, April 25, 1984

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1984

Advocates

Albert L. Purola (on behalf of the Respondent)

John E. Shoop (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Ohio, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Thigpen v. Roberts

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:30 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1330

Petitioner

Thigpen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Roberts

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 27 (1984)

Argued

Monday, April 23, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, June 27, 1984

Advocates

Rhesa H. Barksdale (as amicus curiae in support of judgment below)

William S. Boyd, III (on behalf of the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Roberts, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Arizona v. Rumsey

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:30 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-226

Petitioner

Arizona

Respondent

Rumsey

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 203 (1984)

Argued

Monday, April 23, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1984

Advocates

James R. Rummage (on behalf of the Respondent)

William J. Schafer III (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Rumsey, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Richardson v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:24 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-2113

Petitioner

Richardson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 317 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, March 20, 1984

Decided

Friday, June 29, 1984

Advocates

Michael W. McConnell (on behalf of the respondent)

Allan M. Palmer (on behalf of petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Richardson, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Justices Of Boston Municipal Court v. Lydon

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:09 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1479

Petitioner

Justices Of Boston Municipal Court

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lydon

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 294 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, December 6, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, April 18, 1984

Advocates

David Rossman (on behalf of the Respondent)

Barbara A. H. Smith (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Justices Of Boston Municipal Court, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

United States v. One Assortment Of 89 Firearms

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1047

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

One Assortment Of 89 Firearms

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 354 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, November 30, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, February 22, 1984

Advocates

Herbert W. Louthian (on behalf of the Respondent)

Richard G. Wilkins (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Missouri v. Hunter

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:32:47 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1214

Petitioner

Missouri

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hunter

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

459 U.S. 359 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, November 10, 1982

Decided

Wednesday, January 19, 1983

Advocates

Philip M. Koppe (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Gary L. Gardner (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Missouri, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Oregon v. Kennedy

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:27 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1991

Petitioner

Oregon

Respondent

Kennedy

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 667 (1982)

Argued

Monday, March 29, 1982

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1982

Advocates

David B. Frohnmayer (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

Donald C. Walker (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Oregon, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Tibbs v. Florida

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:32:32 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-5114

Petitioner

Tibbs

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Florida

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 31 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, March 2, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1982

Advocates

Louis R. Beller (on behalf of Petitioner)

Michael A. Palecki (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Florida, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Albernaz v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:31 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1709

Petitioner

Albernaz et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 333 (1981)

Argued

Monday, January 19, 1981

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1981

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Bullington v. Missouri

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:31 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-6740

Petitioner

Bullington

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Missouri

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 430 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, January 14, 1981

Decided

Monday, May 4, 1981

Advocates

James Cook (on behalf of the Respondent)

Richard H. Sindel (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Bullington, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Hudson v. Louisiana

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:35 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-5688

Petitioner

Hudson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Louisiana

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 40 (1981)

Argued

Monday, December 1, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, February 24, 1981

Advocates

Richard O. Burst (on behalf of the Petitioner)

James M. Bullers (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Hudson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

United States v. Difrancesco

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-567

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Difrancesco

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 117 (1980)

Argued

Monday, October 6, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, December 9, 1980

Advocates

Edgar C. NeMoyer (on behalf of the Respondent)

Andrew L. Frey (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Illinois v. Vitale

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:15 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1845

Petitioner

Illinois

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Vitale

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 410 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, January 8, 1980

Decided

Thursday, June 19, 1980

Advocates

James S. Veldman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Lawrence G. Dirksen (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Illinois, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Whalen v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:08 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-5471

Petitioner

Whalen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 684 (1980)

Argued

November 27-28, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, April 16, 1980

Advocates

Andrew L. Frey (on behalf of Respondent)

Silas W. Wasserstrom (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Whalen, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

United States v. Scott

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1382

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Scott

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 82 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, February 21, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, June 14, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

United States v. Wheeler

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:18 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1629

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wheeler

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 313 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, January 11, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, March 22, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Burks v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:57 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-6528

Petitioner

Burks

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 1 (1978)

Argued

Monday, November 28, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, June 14, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Burks, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Greene v. Massey

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:47 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-6617

Petitioner

Greene

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Massey

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 19 (1978)

Argued

Monday, November 28, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, June 14, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Greene, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Sanabria v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1040

Petitioner

Sanabria

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 54 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, November 8, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, June 14, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Sanabria, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Arizona v. Washington

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:47 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1168

Petitioner

Arizona

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Washington

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 497 (1978)

Argued

Monday, October 31, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, February 21, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Arizona, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Lee v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:09 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-5187

Petitioner

Lee

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 23 (1977)

Argued

Monday, April 25, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Jeffers v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:27 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1805

Petitioner

Jeffers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 137 (1977)

Argued

Monday, March 21, 1977

Decided

Thursday, June 16, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Jeffers, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Brown v. Ohio

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-6933

Petitioner

Brown

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ohio

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 161 (1977)

Argued

Monday, March 21, 1977

Decided

Thursday, June 16, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Brown, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None