Jump to content

Bartkus v. Illinois

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk | contribs) at 01:48, 13 September 2023 (add "use mdy dates" template). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Bartkus v. Illinois
Argued November 19, 1957
Reargued October 21–22, 1958
Decided March 30, 1959
Full case nameBartkus v. Illinois
Citations359 U.S. 121 (more)
79 S. Ct. 676; 3 L. Ed. 2d 684; 1959 U.S. LEXIS 1824
Case history
PriorAffirmed by an equally divided Court January 6, 1958, 355 U.S. 281. Rehearing granted, judgment vacated and case restored to calendar for reargument May 26, 1958, 356 U. S. 969.
Holding
Coordination of federal officials with state officials did not implicate the double jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It also held that a defendant may be acquitted of a federal crime and convicted of a state crime, even if those crimes share the same evidence, without violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas · Tom C. Clark
John M. Harlan II · William J. Brennan Jr.
Charles E. Whittaker · Potter Stewart
Case opinions
MajorityFrankfurter, joined by Clark, Harlan, Whittaker, Stewart
DissentBlack, joined by Warren, Douglas
DissentBrennan, joined by Warren, Douglas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V

Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959), is a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision held that coordination of federal officials with state officials did not implicate the double jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It also held that a defendant may be acquitted of a federal crime and convicted of a state crime, even if those crimes share the same evidence, without violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The case established the dual sovereign exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause, enabling state and federal prosecutions for substantially similar events.

[edit]