771:, a judge had held a separate hearing after the jury trial to decide if the sentence should be death or life imprisonment, in which he decided that the circumstances of the case did not permit death to be imposed. On appeal, the judge's ruling was found to be erroneous. However, even though the decision to impose life instead of death was based on an erroneous interpretation of the law by the judge, the conclusion of life imprisonment in the original case constituted an acquittal of the death penalty and thus death could not be imposed upon a subsequent trial. Even though the acquittal of the death penalty was erroneous in that case, the acquittal must stand.
848:(or NJP) is considered to be akin to a civil case and is subject to lower standards than a court-martial, which is the same as a civilian court of law. NJP proceedings are commonly used to correct or punish minor breaches of military discipline. If a NJP proceeding fails to produce conclusive evidence, however, the commanding officer (or ranking official presiding over the NJP) is not allowed to prepare the same charge against the military member in question. In a court-martial, acquittal of the defendant means he is protected permanently from having those charges reinstated.
500:, establishing the doctrine of "implied acquittal". Everett Green had been tried on charges of arson and first and second degree murder in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. He was convicted on arson and the lesser offense of second degree murder. The verdict was silent on the greater offense. His conviction was overturned due to the appellate court deciding there wasn't enough evidence, remanding for a new trial. At the second trial, he was tried again with arson, first and second degree murder, convicted on the greater offense and sentenced to death.
1215:. If a prosecution is determined to have proceeded without authorization, the federal government may and has requested the Court vacate an indictment. Such a move is in line with the Courts vacating indictments wherein prosecutions were discovered to have violated Department of Justice policy. Indictments have also been vacated when the federal government first represents to the Court the prosecution was authorized but later determines that authorization to have been mistaken.
528:. In that case, the lesser charge was voluntary manslaughter and the greater charge was murder. Brantley was convicted on the lesser charge, but was convicted on the greater charge at retrial after the conviction was overturned. He appealed, arguing the inclusion of the greater charge at retrial violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Supreme Court rejected that argument: "It was not a case of twice in jeopardy under any view of the Constitution of the United States."
1000:
by the amendment. Each government in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other. It follows that an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by each. The Fifth
Amendment, like all the other guaranties in the first eight amendments, applies only to proceedings by the federal government (
509:
was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. At this new trial, Green was tried again, not for second degree murder, but for first degree murder, even though the original jury had refused to find him guilty on that charge and it was in no way involved in his appeal. For the reasons stated hereafter, we conclude that this second trial for first degree murder placed Green in jeopardy twice for the same offense in violation of the
Constitution.
949:
of the state governments to be distinct from the federal government of the United States as a whole, with its own laws and court systems, these parallel prosecutions are considered to be different "offenses" under the double jeopardy clause, and the decisions of one government on what to prosecute or not prosecute can't be considered binding on the other. This is known as the "dual sovereignty" or "separate sovereigns" doctrine.
1089:
from New York, flew to
Connecticut and while flying over Connecticut committed a murder by dropping something from the aircraft, the only two sovereigns able to prosecute would be Connecticut and the federal government (due to the murder taking place from an aircraft) – New York would lack jurisdiction since no criminal act would have been perpetrated from there. But if the same man while still in New York remotely piloted a
895:, Damien McElrath killed his mother and was charged with several offenses under Georgia law: malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault. On the malice murder charge, the jury returned a verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity", but returned "guilty but mentally ill" on the felony murder and aggravated assault charges. The Supreme Court of Georgia vacated all verdicts as repugnant and authorized retrial.
554:, with both being convicted on the lesser offense, and retried on the same charges as in the original trial after the conviction is overturned. Unlike Brantley, Price was convicted again on the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter and given a similar sentence. Price appealed that conviction. The State of Georgia contended that since Price was not convicted on the greater offense at retrial, which was the case in
33:
461:
Court, however, overturned the conviction. It was held that in the first trial, since the defense had not presented any evidence that there was no robbery, the jury's acquittal had to be based on the conclusion that the defendant's alibi was valid. Since one jury had held that the defendant was not present at the crime scene, the State could not re-litigate the issue.
852:
the same offense under the provisions of the UCMJ. This is based on the "dual sovereigns" doctrine that holds that the civilian and military justice systems are completely distinct from each other and therefore are treated the same way as the distinction between state and federal courts or US and foreign courts would be for double jeopardy purposes.
1143:. The formal name of the policy is "Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy" and it "establishes guidelines for the exercise of discretion by appropriate officers of the Department of Justice in determining whether to bring a federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transactions involved in a prior state or federal proceeding."
989:, a defendant named Lanza was charged under a Washington statute and simultaneously under a United States statute, with the federal indictment stating several facts also stated in the Washington indictment. The Supreme Court addressed the question of the Federal government and a State government having separate prosecutions on the same facts in
446:, where the defendant had first been convicted of operating an automobile without the owner's consent, and later of stealing the same automobile. The Supreme Court concluded that the same evidence was necessary to prove both offenses, and that in effect there was only one offense. Therefore, it overturned the second conviction.
440:, the Supreme Court held that "where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not". The test was applied in
491:". An oft-mentioned combination is first- and second-degree murder, with second-degree murder being the lesser offense. A person convicted on the lesser charge can never again be tried on the greater charge. If the conviction on the lesser charge is overturned, the greater charge does not then come back into play.
867:, then located in South Dakota Indian Territory. At the time, Federal law prohibited all except Native Americans from settling in the Indian Territory. McCall was retried in Federal Indian Territorial court, convicted, and hanged in 1877. He was the first person ever executed by Federal authorities in the
999:
We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject matter within the same territory. Each may, without interference by the other, enact laws to secure prohibition, with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited
976:
This does not, however, necessarily imply that the two governments possess powers in common, or bring them into conflict with each other. It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he
977:
has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return, he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction.
608:) would not violate double jeopardy, for the judgment in the first trial had been invalidated. In all of these cases, however, the previous trials do not entirely vanish. Testimony from them may be used in later retrials, such as to impeach contradictory testimony given at any subsequent proceeding.
566:
The Double
Jeopardy Clause, as we have noted, is cast in terms of the risk or hazard of trial and conviction, not of the ultimate legal consequences of the verdict. To be charged and to be subjected to a second trial for first-degree murder is an ordeal not to be viewed lightly. Further, and perhaps
508:
At Green's first trial, the jury was authorized to find him guilty of either first degree murder (killing while perpetrating a felony) or, alternatively, of second degree murder (killing with malice aforethought). The jury found him guilty of second degree murder, but, on his appeal, that conviction
460:
players during a game. John Ashe was first tried for, and acquitted of, robbing only one of the players; the defense did not contest that a robbery actually took place. The state then tried the defendant for robbing the second player; stronger identification evidence led to a conviction. The
Supreme
376:
Jeopardy attaches in jury trial when the jury is empaneled and sworn in, in a bench trial when the court begins to hear evidence after the first witness is sworn in, or when a court accepts a defendant's plea unconditionally. Jeopardy does not attach in a retrial of a conviction that was reversed on
948:
The double jeopardy clause does not generally protect a person from being prosecuted by both a state government and the United States federal government for the same act, nor does it protect a person from being prosecuted by multiple states for the same act. Because United States law considers each
474:
Once acquitted, a defendant may not be retried for the same offense: "A verdict of acquittal, although not followed by any judgment, is a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same offense." This applies in all cases where a verdict of not guilty is entered by the Court against a defendant. Be it
1191:
If the choice of charges, or the determination of guilt, or the severity of sentence in the prior prosecution was affected by the sorts of factors listed in the previous list. An example might be a case in which the charges in the initial prosecution trivialized the seriousness of the contemplated
1028:
There may also be federal laws that call other facts into question beyond the scope of any state law. A state may try a defendant for murder, after which the federal government might try the same defendant for a federal crime (perhaps a civil rights violation or a kidnapping) connected to the same
912:
That all verdicts returned by the jury were ruled "repugnant" by the
Supreme Court of Georgia was immaterial. The Supreme Court reiterated its long-standing precedent that an acquittal cannot be second-guessed by any Court, so the Supreme Court of Georgia's ruling to vacate the acquittal was void.
851:
One notable exception to double jeopardy rules for military service members is if the service member was being tried for the same offense in civilian court. If a civilian court acquits an active duty service member of an offense, a court-martial can still be convened against the service member for
720:
An example of this are the charges of "conspiring to commit murder" and "murder". Both charges typically have facts distinct from each other. A person can be charged with "conspiring to commit murder" even if the murder never actually takes place if all facts necessary to support the charge can be
503:
He appealed, claiming the second trial should not have included the greater offense under the Double
Jeopardy Clause. The D.C. Circuit Court rejected the claim. The Supreme Court of the United States overruled, stating that Green was acquitted of first degree murder and, under the Fifth Amendment,
449:
In other cases, the same conduct may constitute multiple offenses under the same statute, for instance where one robs many individuals at the same time. There is no explicit bar to separate prosecutions for different offenses arising under the same "criminal transaction", but it is not permissible
1155:). The federal government will defer to the state to prosecute under their statute. Whatever the outcome of the trial, acquittal or conviction, the Department of Justice will presume that prosecution to vindicate any federal interest and will not initiate prosecution under the United States Code.
1088:
In order for a state to have jurisdiction to prosecute a criminal act, either the action directly resulting in consequences such as death or injury must occur while the perpetrator is in the state and/or the consequences must occur in the state. For example, if a man piloting an airplane took off
832:
that had been disallowed in court might be considered by a parole board. Finally, like civil trials parole violation hearings are also subject to a lower standard of proof so it is possible for a parolee to be punished by the parole board for criminal actions that they were acquitted of in court.
732:
are generally not covered by the double jeopardy clause. If a judge dismisses the case or concludes the trial without deciding the facts in the defendant's favor (for example, by dismissing the case on procedural grounds), the case is a mistrial and may normally be retried. Furthermore, if a jury
709:
A person who is convicted of one set of charges cannot in general be tried on additional charges related to the crime unless said additional charges cover new facts against which the person in question has not yet been acquitted or convicted. The test that determines whether this can occur is the
659:
Following on the new evidence, the Cook County State's
Attorney in December 1993 filed new charges alleging Aleman killed William Logan, an identical allegation for which Aleman had been previously acquitted. He was convicted on that charge and sentenced to 100 to 300 years in prison. He appealed
1146:
Under this policy, the
Department of Justice presumes that any prosecution at the state level for any fact applicable to any federal charge vindicates any federal interest in those facts, even if the outcome is an acquittal. As an example, a person who commits murder within the jurisdiction of a
827:
from an earlier offense at the time may also be the subject of a parole violation hearing, which is not considered to be a criminal trial. Since parolees are usually subject to restrictions not imposed on other citizens, evidence of actions that were not deemed to be criminal by the court may be
761:
The prosecution may not seek capital punishment in the retrial if the jury did not impose it in the original trial. The reason for this exception is that before imposing the death penalty the jury has to make several factual determinations and if the jury does not make these it is seen as the
1128:
Though the
Supreme Court of the United States has recognized the dual sovereignty doctrine as an exception to double jeopardy, the United States will not exercise its dual sovereignty power on everyone who becomes subject to it. As a self-imposed limitation on its dual sovereignty power, the
1025:
government had criminal jurisdiction only over 8 of the 168 confirmed deaths. With the express intent of seeing Nichols also sentenced to death, while contemplating the same for McVeigh if his death sentence was overturned on appeal, the State of Oklahoma filed charges against Terry Nichols.
1024:
were tried and convicted in federal court, with Nichols sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole, and McVeigh sentenced to death and later executed. While the building was owned by the federal government, serving as branch locations for multiple federal agencies, the federal
958:
in 1847, in which the petitioner, Malinda Fox, was appealing a conviction of a state crime of passing a counterfeit silver dollar. The power to coin money is granted exclusively to Congress, and it was argued that Congress's power precludes the power of any state from prosecuting any crimes
631:
Retrial is not possible if the verdict is overturned on the grounds of evidentiary insufficiency, rather than on the grounds of procedural faults. As noted above, if the trial court made a determination of evidentiary insufficiency, the determination would constitute a final acquittal; in
1076:, observed of this case, "Certainly, no one has been exonerated and then returned to death row for the same crime except Hennis." Hennis challenged jurisdiction under the Double Jeopardy Clause on appeal to the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, which rejected the challenge.
682:
Without risk of a determination of guilt, jeopardy does not attach, and neither an appeal nor further prosecution constitutes double jeopardy․ In particular, it has no significance in this context unless jeopardy has once attached and an accused has been subjected to the risk of
749:, the Supreme Court held that "only where the governmental conduct in question is intended to 'goad' the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded in aborting the first on his own motion."
597:
because of insufficient evidence may constitute a final judgment for these purposes, though many state and federal laws allow for substantially limited prosecutorial appeals from these orders. Also, a retrial after a conviction that had been set aside upon a motion for
1085:, the "separate sovereigns" rule allows two states to prosecute for the same criminal act. For example, if a man stood in New York and shot and killed a man standing over the border in Connecticut, both New York and Connecticut could charge the shooter with murder.
898:
McElrath argued the "not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict is an acquittal that prohibited Georgia from retrying McElrath on the malice murder charge. The Supreme Court of the United States agreed, ruling that "not guilty by reason of insanity" is an acquittal:
1187:
If the prior sentence was manifestly inadequate in light of the federal interest involved and a substantially enhanced sentence—including forfeiture and restitution as well as imprisonment and fines—is available through the contemplated federal prosecution,
517:
In brief, we believe this case can be treated no differently, for purposes of former jeopardy, than if the jury had returned a verdict which expressly read: "We find the defendant not guilty of murder in the first degree but guilty of murder in the second
1203:
The alleged violation involves egregious conduct, including that which threatens or causes loss of life, severe economic or physical harm, or the impairment of the functioning of an agency of the federal government or the due administration of justice,
377:
appeal on procedural grounds (as opposed to evidentiary insufficiency grounds), in a retrial for which "manifest necessity" has been shown following a mistrial, and in the seating of another grand jury if the prior one refuses to return an indictment
757:
The defendant may not be punished twice for the same offense. In certain circumstances, however, a sentence may be increased. It has been held that sentences do not have the same "finality" as acquittals, and may therefore be reviewed by the courts.
655:
for the September 1972 death of William Logan. Nearly 20 years later, two persons under Federal Witness Protection came forward to state that Aleman murdered Logan and another individual, and had also bribed the trial judge to return an acquittal.
2217:
541:
While the Brantley holding may have had some vitality at the time the Georgia courts rendered their decisions in this case, it is no longer a viable authority and must now be deemed to have been overruled by subsequent decisions of this
721:
demonstrated through evidence. Further, a person convicted or acquitted of murder can, additionally, be tried on conspiracy as well if it has been determined after the conviction or acquittal that a conspiracy did, in fact, take place.
567:
of more importance, we cannot determine whether or not the murder charge against petitioner induced the jury to find him guilty of the less serious offense of voluntary manslaughter rather than to continue to debate his innocence.
739:. When the defendant moves for a mistrial, there is no bar to retrial, even if the prosecutor or judge caused the error that forms the basis of the motion. An exception exists, however, where the prosecutor or judge has acted in
1172:
the unavailability of significant evidence, either because it was not timely discovered or known by the prosecution, or because it was kept from the trier of fact's consideration because of an erroneous interpretation of the
903:
For double jeopardy purposes, a jury's determination that a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity is a conclusion that "criminal culpability had not been established," just as much as any other form of acquittal.
2971:
1247:
However, the Fifth Amendment contains several other important provision s for protecting your rights. It is the source of the double jeopardy doctrine, which prevents authorities from trying a person twice for the same
691:
Aleman may be correct that some risk of conviction still existed after Judge Wilson agreed to fix the case, but it cannot be said that the risk was the sort "traditionally associated" with an impartial criminal justice
828:
re-considered by the parole board. This legal board could deem the same evidence to be proof of a parole violation. Most states' parole boards have looser rules of evidence than is found in the courts – for example,
2789:
2726:
2827:
646:
If the earlier trial is a fraud, double jeopardy will not prohibit a new trial because the party acquitted has prevented themselves from being placed into jeopardy to begin with. One such case is the trial of
1108:, are exclusively under federal sovereignty. Acquittal in the court system of any of these entities would therefore preclude a re-trial (or a court-martial) in any court system under federal jurisdiction.
660:
that conviction and the indictment, challenging that the second prosecution was barred under the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Seventh Circuit disagreed, stating first that "jeopardy denotes risk", citing
3196:
1925:
874:
Double jeopardy also does not apply if the defendant was never tried from the start. Charges that were dropped or put on hold for any reason can always be reinstated in the future—if not barred by some
2355:
2966:
3913:
3928:
1004:, 7 Pet. 243), and the double jeopardy therein forbidden is a second prosecution under authority of the federal government after a first trial for the same offense under the same authority. (The
2799:
2683:
2483:
2415:
52:
2669:
1179:
the exclusion of charges in a prior federal prosecution out of concern for fairness to other defendants, or for significant resource considerations that favored separate federal prosecutions
326:
701:
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not attach in a grand jury proceeding, or bar a grand jury from returning an indictment when a prior grand jury has refused to do so.
3447:
2654:
2644:
2011:, who said he wanted the state prosecutions to avoid reductions of sentences on appeal and to make Mr. Nichols face charges carrying a death sentence, filed 163 counts against Mr. Nichols.
80:
4743:
2664:
2659:
2649:
2639:
2112: (A. Ct. Crim. App. 2016) ("The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar one sovereign from proceeding on a charge of which an accused has been acquitted by another sovereign.").
479:(jury during a trial by jury, the judge during a bench trial), a direct acquittal by a judge on motion from the defense, or a ruling that the evidence is insufficient for conviction.
2619:
4738:
2629:
2624:
2593:
2588:
1049:, when those crimes had not been actively prosecuted, or had resulted in acquittals by juries that were thought to be racist or overly sympathetic with the accused in local courts.
1041:, but some were later convicted and sentenced in federal court for violating King's civil rights. Similar legal processes were used for prosecuting racially motivated crimes in the
934:
214:
1097:
separate sovereigns could prosecute the murder (New York, Connecticut and the federal government due to the use of the unmanned aircraft as well as interstate telecommunications).
687:
The Seventh Circuit declared that, in rejecting the Double Jeopardy claim, even with the slight risk of conviction following the bribe, Aleman still nullified any legitimate risk:
406:
Sometimes the same conduct may violate different statutes. If all elements of a lesser offense are relied on to prove a greater offense, the two crimes are the "same offense" for
2634:
2614:
2598:
2328:
2275:
2253:
2199:
2170:
2127:
1972:
1892:
1870:
1800:
1775:
1750:
1701:
1656:
1607:
1579:
1530:
1505:
1480:
1455:
1430:
1405:
1380:
1289:
1265:
3191:
2565:
1947:
1917:
1677:
1632:
3442:
2570:
2534:
4748:
3846:
2539:
2519:
2509:
3970:
3286:
3251:
2981:
2549:
2544:
2529:
2524:
2514:
2504:
2372:
908:, 437 U. S. 1, 10 (1978). Such a verdict reflects "that the Government ha failed to come forward with sufficient proof of capacity to be responsible for criminal acts."
344:
1052:
Federal jurisdiction may apply because the defendant is a member of the armed forces or the victim(s) are armed forces members or dependents. U.S. Army Master Sergeant
3961:
194:
1158:
However that presumption can be overcome. The policy stipulates five criteria that may overcome that presumption (particularly for an acquittal at the state level):
3973:
3372:
3094:
2473:
2453:
2408:
1212:
587:
does not violate the double jeopardy clause because a mistrial ends a trial prematurely without a judgment of guilty or not, as was decided by the Supreme Court in
487:
Every charge has specific facts that must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. And it is not unusual for a prosecutor to charge a person with "
204:
3857:
3296:
2463:
2458:
319:
1196:
The presumption also may be overcome, irrespective of the result in a prior state prosecution, in those rare cases where the following three conditions are met:
615:
for the defendant. A successful appeal by the prosecution would simply reinstate the jury verdict and so would not place the defendant at risk of another trial.
3281:
3276:
3266:
3246:
3226:
3171:
2468:
2448:
2443:
571:
Noting that the murder charge may have poisoned the jury against Price, the Supreme Court vacated the voluntary manslaughter conviction and remanded the case.
2351:
3664:
2716:
3377:
3176:
2912:
2438:
2401:
638:, the Court held that "it should make no difference that the reviewing court, rather than the trial court, determined the evidence to be insufficient."
3151:
3121:
2907:
2872:
2852:
312:
174:
59:
3156:
164:
3367:
22:
3457:
3126:
3004:
184:
169:
143:
2295:
794:). Acquittal in a criminal case does not prevent the defendant from being the defendant in a civil suit relating to the same incident (though
583:
judgment, there are many situations in which it does not apply, despite the appearance of a retrial. For example, a second trial held after a
4442:
3679:
2769:
2764:
2691:
1348:
Shindala, C. (1992). "Where Conspiracy To Commit a Crime Is Based on Previously Prosecuted Overt Acts, No Double Jeopardy Violation Exists".
1240:
148:
774:
Double jeopardy also does not apply if the later charge is civil rather than criminal in nature, which involves a different legal standard (
3954:
3412:
3206:
1311:"The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment: The Supreme Court's Cursory Treatment of Underlying Conduct in Successive Prosecutions"
913:
The Court did not rule on the status of the "guilty but mentally ill" charges, leaving that up to the Georgia courts to ultimately decide.
64:
1176:
the failure in a prior state prosecution to prove an element of a state offense that is not an element of the contemplated federal offense
863:. McCall was acquitted in his first trial, which Federal authorities later ruled to be illegal because it took place in an illegal town,
3788:
3407:
2999:
2218:"In ruling with implications for Trump's pardon power, Supreme Court continues to allow state and federal prosecutions for same offense"
1130:
930:
3044:
2032:
1992:
1148:
234:
138:
100:
1117:, decided in June 2019. The Supreme Court upheld the nature of dual sovereignty between federal and state charges in a 7–2 decision.
1064:
of Kathryn Eastburn (31 years old) and her daughters, Kara (5 years old) and Erin (3 years old), stabbed to death in their home near
3987:
3387:
2749:
2424:
1837:
209:
47:
4591:
4187:
3892:
3887:
3231:
2376:
1745:
1101:
1073:
841:
612:
2049:
4367:
3947:
3236:
3221:
2165:
1192:
federal offense, for example, a state prosecution for assault and battery in a case involving the murder of a federal official.
95:
2368:
3643:
2387:
1183:
The presumption may be overcome even when a conviction was achieved in the prior prosecution in the following circumstances:
275:
131:
4254:
3357:
2946:
1038:
1030:
300:
229:
1200:
The alleged violation involves a compelling federal interest, particularly one implicating an enduring national priority.
855:
The most famous American court case invoking the claim of double jeopardy is probably the second murder trial in 1876 of
4391:
4324:
4088:
3907:
3705:
3136:
3009:
2814:
2696:
2496:
2190:
1375:
711:
623:
If a defendant appeals a conviction and is successful in having it overturned, the defendant may be subject to retrial.
436:
4131:
3921:
3825:
3783:
3778:
3181:
2867:
2832:
1942:
968:
199:
972:, in which the Supreme Court stated that the government of the United States is a separate sovereign from any state:
670:
In the constitutional sense, jeopardy describes the risk that is traditionally associated with criminal prosecution.
4679:
4607:
4016:
3875:
3322:
3291:
3141:
3014:
2779:
2774:
1065:
4491:
4155:
4032:
3623:
3503:
3302:
3034:
2857:
2734:
2580:
2300:
1500:
809:
4599:
4458:
3592:
3462:
3326:
3186:
2951:
2941:
2809:
2323:
4407:
1475:
1260:
1072:
by the Army for the crime, convicted, and sentenced again to death. Richard Dieter, executive director of the
4647:
4503:
2270:
1139:
4639:
4399:
4343:
4289:
4222:
4214:
4147:
4048:
3939:
3382:
3330:
3256:
3084:
2961:
2956:
2892:
2862:
2804:
2244:
1967:
1525:
1113:
1090:
1061:
1053:
991:
496:
488:
270:
224:
4139:
1683:
1450:
4623:
4567:
4273:
4246:
4238:
4171:
4112:
4104:
3545:
3417:
2989:
2936:
2887:
2711:
1652:
1627:
1285:
1042:
905:
876:
864:
845:
801:
735:
634:
589:
430:
387:
295:
189:
126:
2109:
1574:
524:
513:
That the jury did not explicitly return an acquittal on first degree murder in its verdict is immaterial:
4671:
4543:
4511:
4383:
4281:
4000:
3752:
3131:
3099:
2930:
2759:
2706:
2332:
2279:
2257:
2203:
2174:
2131:
1976:
1951:
1921:
1896:
1874:
1804:
1779:
1754:
1705:
1660:
1636:
1611:
1583:
1534:
1509:
1484:
1459:
1434:
1409:
1384:
1293:
1269:
1207:
The result in the prior prosecution was manifestly inadequate in light of the federal interest involved.
1046:
1013:
791:
787:
652:
594:
4527:
2078:
2074:
1795:
767:
1602:
1100:
Only the states and tribal jurisdictions are recognized as possessing a separate sovereignty, whereas
533:
4434:
4305:
3897:
3452:
3166:
3161:
3116:
3089:
3039:
2784:
2360:
892:
817:
85:
1696:
662:
4663:
4631:
4583:
4575:
4535:
4351:
4195:
3880:
3669:
3397:
3261:
3049:
2994:
2897:
2754:
2222:
2152:
1861:
1400:
602:, and that subsequently has been reversed on appeal or vacated in a collateral proceeding (such as
442:
260:
179:
1310:
4615:
4551:
4519:
4466:
4450:
4040:
3582:
3566:
3427:
3241:
3216:
3201:
3111:
3079:
3069:
3029:
3019:
1997:
1887:
1330:
1166:
986:
922:
733:
cannot reach a verdict, the judge may declare a mistrial and order a retrial as was addressed in
400:
392:
350:
285:
280:
244:
219:
110:
1829:
1012:
This separation of sovereignty is seen with the separate federal and state trials of convicted
959:
pertaining to the money, an argument the Supreme Court rejected in upholding Fox's conviction.
424:
regarding the "same conduct" vs "same offense" test, which was later overruled and reverted to
4655:
4359:
4297:
4179:
3902:
3648:
3633:
3613:
3487:
3362:
3341:
3105:
2917:
2744:
2028:
1843:
1833:
1770:
1357:
1236:
844:
has incorporated all of the protections of the U.S. Constitution. The non-criminal proceeding
745:
1954:
4703:
4559:
4426:
4375:
3524:
3271:
3146:
3074:
3059:
2794:
2739:
2701:
2122:
1322:
1105:
1081:
888:
868:
860:
779:
2352:
Dual Sovereignty, Due Process, and Duplicative Punishment: A New Solution to an Old Problem
1979:
1782:
1614:
1462:
1387:
1272:
1093:
using the cellular network and used that vehicle to commit the murder in Connecticut, then
4695:
4230:
4163:
4096:
3809:
3757:
3638:
3597:
3508:
3432:
3336:
3318:
3054:
3024:
2882:
2249:
2195:
1866:
1425:
1021:
982:
611:
Prosecutors may appeal when a trial judge sets aside a jury verdict for conviction with a
452:
420:
407:
1757:
1663:
359:
The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:
4687:
4024:
3747:
3726:
3710:
3674:
3618:
3587:
3402:
2335:
2282:
2177:
1899:
1822:
1807:
1708:
1586:
1537:
1512:
1487:
1437:
1412:
1296:
1057:
559:
476:
2134:
1929:
1639:
1147:
state is subject to that state's murder statute and the United States murder statute (
4732:
4711:
4008:
3852:
3773:
3731:
3700:
3628:
3550:
3422:
3392:
3308:
3211:
2922:
2877:
1069:
1017:
952:
The earliest case at the Supreme Court of the United States to address the matter is
837:
805:
604:
239:
105:
2393:
349:"or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of
921:
Although the Fifth Amendment initially applied only to the federal government, the
796:
648:
1152:
32:
1111:
The dual sovereignty nature of the Double Jeopardy Clause was reheard as part of
891:" allows a defendant to be acquitted by reason of mental illness. In 2012 in the
531:
The Supreme Court explicitly overruled Brantley in another, near-identical case,
3804:
3684:
1912:
1034:
954:
856:
265:
90:
579:
As double jeopardy applies only to charges that were the subject of an earlier
403:
to commit that offense are not the same offense for double jeopardy purposes."
3529:
3313:
926:
813:
354:
290:
1847:
1361:
3437:
2383:
740:
522:
This case did, in effect, overrule a preceding per curiam decision, that of
410:
purposes, and the doctrine will bar the second prosecution. This ruling in
450:
for the prosecution to re-litigate facts already determined by a jury. In
729:
584:
16:
U.S. constitutional law preventing repeated punishment for the same crime
3472:
2902:
2050:"At 3rd Trial, Master Sgt. Timothy Hennis Guilty of 1985 Triple Murder"
1334:
829:
824:
2296:"9-2.031 - Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy ("Petite Policy")"
1326:
775:
599:
457:
396:
2369:
DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND MULTIPLE SOVEREIGNS: A JURISDICTIONAL THEORY
2364:. Volume 124 (2014-2015), No. 2 (November 2014), p. 248-575.
1211:
The existence of any of these criteria is to be determined by an
783:
4489:
4067:
3985:
3943:
2397:
2025:
Innocent Victims: The True Story of the Eastburn Family Murders
1008:
precedent was superseded 35 years later by the 14th Amendment)
1993:"Oklahoma to Try Terry Nichols On Murder and Bomb Charges"
1162:
incompetence, corruption, intimidation, or undue influence
840:
are subject to the same law of double jeopardy, since the
1104:, the military and naval forces, and the capital city of
1068:. Two decades later, Hennis was recalled to active duty,
925:
has ruled that the double jeopardy clause applies to the
2384:
When Does Double Prosecution Count as Double Jeopardy?
762:
equivalent of an acquittal of a more serious offense.
1678:
Aleman v. Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County
4418:
4335:
4316:
4265:
4206:
4123:
4080:
3866:
3838:
3818:
3797:
3766:
3740:
3719:
3693:
3657:
3606:
3575:
3559:
3538:
3517:
3496:
3480:
3471:
3350:
2980:
2845:
2725:
2682:
2607:
2579:
2558:
2495:
2482:
2431:
1233:
The Complete Idiot's Guide to the U.S. Constitution
3847:Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787
1821:
345:Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
4744:United States constitutional criminal procedure
1213:Assistant Attorney General of the United States
997:
974:
3858:Bibliography of the United States Constitution
4739:United States Double Jeopardy Clause case law
3955:
2409:
1169:in clear disregard of the evidence or the law
981:In 1920 the United States was fresh into the
456:, the defendant was accused of robbing seven
320:
8:
2379:. 2009, Volume 86, Issue 4, p. 769-857.
1597:
1595:
4486:
4077:
4064:
3982:
3962:
3948:
3940:
3477:
2492:
2488:
2416:
2402:
2394:
327:
313:
18:
4749:Clauses of the United States Constitution
651:, who was tried and acquitted in 1977 in
3914:Scene at the Signing of the Constitution
1037:in 1991 were acquitted by a jury of the
562:". The Supreme Court rejected that idea:
1315:Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
1223:
816:criminal prosecution, but lost a civil
252:
156:
118:
72:
39:
21:
985:. In one prosecution that occurred in
4443:Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber
1828:. New York University Press. p.
1824:Double Jeopardy: The History, the Law
558:, the second indictment constituted "
504:could not be retried on that charge.
7:
1045:in the 1960s during the time of the
941:
369:retrial after certain mistrials; and
3881:Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom
3408:Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
2048:Paparella, Andrew (April 8, 2010).
1231:Harper, Timothy (October 2, 2007).
1131:United States Department of Justice
546:The lesser and greater offenses in
494:The Supreme Court ruled as such in
2972:Drafting and ratification timeline
2717:District of Columbia Voting Rights
414:distinguished between the test in
14:
2425:Constitution of the United States
2023:Whisnant, Scott (March 1, 1993).
1033:who were charged with assaulting
4188:Bravo-Fernandez v. United States
2828:Convention to propose amendments
2377:Washington University Law Review
2216:Barnes, Robert (June 17, 2019).
1102:territories of the United States
1074:Death Penalty Information Center
842:Uniform Code of Military Justice
697:Grand juries and double jeopardy
613:judgment notwithstanding verdict
31:
2105:United States v. Timothy Hennis
820:brought over the same victims.
3443:Separation of church and state
2388:Congressional Research Service
1820:Thomas, George Conner (1998).
1235:. Penguin Group. p. 109.
823:Defendants happening to be on
1:
3971:United States Fifth Amendment
2947:Virginia Ratifying Convention
1309:Donofrio, Anthony J. (1993).
1039:Superior Courts of California
1031:Los Angeles Police Department
792:clear and convincing evidence
619:Reversal for procedural error
475:an acquittal returned by the
301:Common good constitutionalism
4392:Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle
4325:Blockburger v. United States
4089:Blockburger v. United States
3908:National Constitution Center
3706:Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer
3005:Assemble and Petition Clause
2191:Puerto Rico v. Sánchez Valle
2085:. Condé Nast. pp. 56–67
1376:Blockburger v. United States
1056:was acquitted on retrial in
437:Blockburger v. United States
4132:United States v. Randenbush
3779:Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
2833:State ratifying conventions
2770:Equal Opportunity to Govern
2765:Electoral College abolition
2692:Congressional Apportionment
1943:United States v. Cruikshank
1002:Barron v. City of Baltimore
969:United States v. Cruikshank
366:retrial after a conviction;
363:retrial after an acquittal;
195:Right to keep and bear arms
4765:
4680:J. D. B. v. North Carolina
4608:Dickerson v. United States
4017:Wong Wing v. United States
2148:United States v. Claiborne
1066:Fort Bragg, North Carolina
836:In the American military,
205:Criminal procedural rights
4592:Mitchell v. United States
4498:
4492:Self-Incrimination Clause
4485:
4336:Dual sovereignty doctrine
4156:Fong Foo v. United States
4081:Meaning of "same offense"
4076:
4063:
4033:United States v. Moreland
3995:
3981:
3232:Privileges and Immunities
3045:Congressional enforcement
2967:Rhode Island ratification
2858:Articles of Confederation
2823:
2800:Parental Rights amendment
2491:
2324:Thompson v. United States
2079:"Three Trials for Murder"
1746:United States v. Williams
1686: (7th Cir. 1998).
1501:Fong Foo v. United States
1079:Furthermore, as ruled in
1029:act. The officers of the
788:preponderance of evidence
4600:United States v. Hubbell
4459:North Carolina v. Pearce
4408:Denezpi v. United States
4368:United States v. Wheeler
3463:Unitary executive theory
3237:Privileges or Immunities
2952:New York Circular Letter
2942:Massachusetts Compromise
2166:United States v. Wheeler
2155: (E.D.Va. 2000).
2153:92 F.Supp.2d 503
1476:United States v. Jenkins
1261:Serfass v. United States
1133:has a policy called the
962:A case that followed on
778:must be proven beyond a
705:Retrial after conviction
489:lesser included offenses
276:Political process theory
4648:Corley v. United States
4640:United States v. Patane
4504:Curcio v. United States
4400:Gamble v. United States
4290:United States v. Dinitz
4223:Ludwig v. Massachusetts
4215:United States v. Wilson
4148:Burton v. United States
4049:United States v. Cotton
3383:Dormant Commerce Clause
3227:Presidential succession
2962:Fayetteville Convention
2957:Hillsborough Convention
2893:Three-fifths Compromise
2873:Philadelphia Convention
2863:Mount Vernon Conference
2750:Campaign finance reform
2367:Colangelo, Anthony J. "
2271:Petite v. United States
2245:Gamble v. United States
1723:, 420 U.S., at 391-392.
1350:Mississippi Law Journal
1140:Petite v. United States
1114:Gamble v. United States
846:non-judicial punishment
786:need only be proven by
595:involuntarily dismissed
470:Retrial after acquittal
465:"Twice put in jeopardy"
271:Substantive due process
4624:Yarborough v. Alvarado
4344:United States v. Lanza
4274:United States v. Perez
4255:Smith v. United States
4247:United States v. Dixon
4239:United States v. Felix
4172:Burks v. United States
4113:United States v. Dixon
4105:United States v. Felix
4070:Double Jeopardy Clause
3546:William Samuel Johnson
3418:Nondelegation doctrine
2990:Admission to the Union
2937:Anti-Federalist Papers
2888:Connecticut Compromise
2301:U.S. Attorney's Manual
1968:United States v. Lanza
1653:Burks v. United States
1628:United States v. Perez
1526:Green v. United States
1286:United States v. Felix
1043:Southern United States
1010:
992:United States v. Lanza
979:
910:
906:Burks v. United States
877:statute of limitations
804:system). For example,
725:Retrial after mistrial
694:
685:
672:
635:Burks v. United States
590:United States v. Perez
569:
544:
520:
511:
497:Green v. United States
431:United States v. Dixon
388:United States v. Felix
341:Double Jeopardy Clause
296:Strict constructionism
200:Right to trial by jury
190:Freedom of association
4672:Berghuis v. Thompkins
4512:Griffin v. California
4384:United States v. Lara
4282:United States v. Jorn
4140:Ball v. United States
4001:Hurtado v. California
3753:Richard Dobbs Spaight
3222:Presidential Electors
3197:Original Jurisdiction
3137:Full Faith and Credit
3010:Assistance of Counsel
2931:The Federalist Papers
2760:Crittenden Compromise
2077:(November 14, 2011).
1451:Ball v. United States
1047:Civil Rights Movement
1014:Oklahoma City bombing
901:
689:
680:
668:
653:Cook County, Illinois
564:
539:
515:
506:
4568:Doe v. United States
4435:Palko v. Connecticut
4306:Blueford v. Arkansas
3922:A More Perfect Union
3898:Constitution Gardens
3819:Convention Secretary
3481:Convention President
3453:Symmetric federalism
3448:Separation of powers
3182:Necessary and Proper
3177:Natural-born citizen
3122:Freedom of the Press
3060:Copyright and Patent
3050:Contingent Elections
2868:Annapolis Convention
2361:The Yale Law Journal
1684:138 F.3d 302
1137:policy, named after
1020:. Terry Nichols and
944:sovereignty doctrine
935:Fourteenth Amendment
818:wrongful death claim
800:operates within the
790:or in some matters,
753:Multiple punishments
245:Comprehensible rules
215:Freedom from slavery
175:Freedom of the press
119:Government structure
81:Separation of powers
25:of the United States
4664:Maryland v. Shatzer
4632:Missouri v. Seibert
4584:McNeil v. Wisconsin
4576:Illinois v. Perkins
4536:Williams v. Florida
4352:Bartkus v. Illinois
4317:Multiple punishment
4196:McElrath v. Georgia
3929:Worldwide influence
3670:Gunning Bedford Jr.
3398:Executive privilege
3378:Criminal sentencing
3301:Title of Nobility (
3292:Taxing and Spending
3192:Oath or Affirmation
3152:House Apportionment
3015:Case or Controversy
2898:Committee of Detail
2790:"Liberty" amendment
2755:Christian amendment
2304:. February 19, 2015
2223:The Washington Post
1862:McElrath v. Georgia
1735:, 138 F.3d, at 309.
1575:Brantley v. Georgia
1564:, 355 U.S., at 191.
1552:, 355 U.S., at 190.
808:was acquitted of a
575:Non-final judgments
525:Brantley v. Georgia
372:multiple punishment
261:Living Constitution
180:Freedom of assembly
165:Freedom of religion
4616:Chavez v. Martinez
4552:Edwards v. Arizona
4544:Michigan v. Tucker
4520:Miranda v. Arizona
4467:Benton v. Maryland
4451:Baxstrom v. Herold
4041:Beck v. Washington
3974:criminal procedure
3583:William Livingston
3567:Alexander Hamilton
3373:Criminal procedure
3368:Constitutional law
3303:Foreign Emoluments
3267:State of the Union
3252:Self-Incrimination
3242:Recess appointment
3035:Compulsory Process
2697:Titles of Nobility
2390:. August 16, 2018.
2075:Schmidle, Nicholas
1998:The New York Times
1888:Benton v. Maryland
1167:jury nullification
923:U.S. Supreme Court
483:Implied acquittals
418:and the ruling in
393:U.S. Supreme Court
281:Judicial restraint
240:Right to candidacy
127:Legislative branch
23:Constitutional law
4726:
4725:
4722:
4721:
4656:Florida v. Powell
4528:Boulden v. Holman
4481:
4480:
4477:
4476:
4360:Waller v. Florida
4298:Oregon v. Kennedy
4180:Evans v. Michigan
4059:
4058:
3937:
3936:
3903:Constitution Week
3888:Independence Mall
3876:National Archives
3834:
3833:
3649:Gouverneur Morris
3634:Thomas Fitzsimons
3614:Benjamin Franklin
3488:George Washington
3388:Enumerated powers
3363:Concurrent powers
3358:Balance of powers
3187:No Religious Test
3127:Freedom of Speech
2918:Independence Hall
2841:
2840:
2745:Bricker amendment
2678:
2677:
2110:75 MJ 796
1796:Arizona v. Rumsey
1771:Oregon v. Kennedy
1242:978-1-59257-627-2
1054:Timothy B. Hennis
768:Arizona v. Rumsey
746:Oregon v. Kennedy
550:are identical to
337:
336:
185:Right to petition
170:Freedom of speech
157:Individual rights
111:Tiers of scrutiny
86:Individual rights
4756:
4704:Salinas v. Texas
4560:Oregon v. Elstad
4487:
4427:Ex parte Bigelow
4376:Heath v. Alabama
4207:After conviction
4078:
4065:
3983:
3964:
3957:
3950:
3941:
3893:Constitution Day
3784:Charles Pinckney
3593:William Paterson
3525:Nathaniel Gorham
3478:
3257:Speech or Debate
3085:Equal Protection
2795:Ludlow amendment
2780:Flag Desecration
2775:Federal Marriage
2740:Blaine amendment
2702:Corwin Amendment
2493:
2489:
2418:
2411:
2404:
2395:
2350:Adler, Adam J. "
2339:
2320:
2314:
2313:
2311:
2309:
2292:
2286:
2267:
2261:
2241:
2235:
2234:
2232:
2230:
2213:
2207:
2187:
2181:
2162:
2156:
2150:
2144:
2138:
2123:Heath v. Alabama
2119:
2113:
2107:
2101:
2095:
2094:
2092:
2090:
2071:
2065:
2064:
2062:
2060:
2045:
2039:
2038:
2020:
2014:
2013:
2008:
2006:
2001:. March 30, 1999
1989:
1983:
1964:
1958:
1939:
1933:
1909:
1903:
1884:
1878:
1858:
1852:
1851:
1827:
1817:
1811:
1792:
1786:
1767:
1761:
1742:
1736:
1730:
1724:
1718:
1712:
1693:
1687:
1681:
1673:
1667:
1649:
1643:
1624:
1618:
1603:Price v. Georgia
1599:
1590:
1571:
1565:
1559:
1553:
1547:
1541:
1522:
1516:
1497:
1491:
1472:
1466:
1447:
1441:
1422:
1416:
1397:
1391:
1372:
1366:
1365:
1345:
1339:
1338:
1306:
1300:
1282:
1276:
1257:
1251:
1250:
1228:
1106:Washington, D.C.
1082:Heath v. Alabama
987:Washington State
943:
929:as well through
893:State of Georgia
889:insanity defense
883:Insanity defense
869:Dakota Territory
861:Wild Bill Hickok
780:reasonable doubt
674:And also citing
534:Price v. Georgia
329:
322:
315:
225:Equal protection
210:Right to privacy
149:Local government
144:State government
132:Executive branch
35:
19:
4764:
4763:
4759:
4758:
4757:
4755:
4754:
4753:
4729:
4728:
4727:
4718:
4696:Howes v. Fields
4494:
4473:
4414:
4331:
4312:
4261:
4231:Grady v. Corbin
4202:
4164:Ashe v. Swenson
4124:After acquittal
4119:
4097:Grady v. Corbin
4072:
4055:
3991:
3977:
3968:
3938:
3933:
3868:
3862:
3830:
3826:William Jackson
3814:
3810:Abraham Baldwin
3793:
3762:
3758:Hugh Williamson
3736:
3715:
3689:
3680:Richard Bassett
3653:
3639:Jared Ingersoll
3602:
3598:Jonathan Dayton
3571:
3555:
3534:
3513:
3509:Nicholas Gilman
3492:
3467:
3433:Reserved powers
3413:Judicial review
3346:
3142:General Welfare
3065:Double Jeopardy
2976:
2903:List of Framers
2883:New Jersey Plan
2837:
2819:
2815:Victims' Rights
2735:Balanced budget
2721:
2674:
2603:
2575:
2554:
2478:
2427:
2422:
2347:
2342:
2321:
2317:
2307:
2305:
2294:
2293:
2289:
2268:
2264:
2260:___ (2019).
2242:
2238:
2228:
2226:
2215:
2214:
2210:
2206:___ (2016).
2188:
2184:
2163:
2159:
2146:
2145:
2141:
2120:
2116:
2103:
2102:
2098:
2088:
2086:
2073:
2072:
2068:
2058:
2056:
2047:
2046:
2042:
2035:
2022:
2021:
2017:
2004:
2002:
1991:
1990:
1986:
1965:
1961:
1940:
1936:
1910:
1906:
1885:
1881:
1859:
1855:
1840:
1819:
1818:
1814:
1793:
1789:
1768:
1764:
1743:
1739:
1731:
1727:
1719:
1715:
1694:
1690:
1675:
1674:
1670:
1650:
1646:
1625:
1621:
1600:
1593:
1572:
1568:
1560:
1556:
1548:
1544:
1523:
1519:
1498:
1494:
1473:
1469:
1448:
1444:
1426:Ashe v. Swenson
1423:
1419:
1398:
1394:
1373:
1369:
1347:
1346:
1342:
1327:10.2307/1143871
1308:
1307:
1303:
1283:
1279:
1258:
1254:
1243:
1230:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1126:
1070:court-martialed
1022:Timothy McVeigh
1016:co-conspirator
983:Prohibition Era
946:
919:
885:
810:double homicide
755:
727:
707:
699:
644:
629:
621:
577:
485:
472:
467:
453:Ashe v. Swenson
421:Grady v. Corbin
408:double jeopardy
383:
333:
139:Judicial branch
65:Judicial review
24:
17:
12:
11:
5:
4762:
4760:
4752:
4751:
4746:
4741:
4731:
4730:
4724:
4723:
4720:
4719:
4717:
4716:
4708:
4700:
4692:
4688:Bobby v. Dixon
4684:
4676:
4668:
4660:
4652:
4644:
4636:
4628:
4620:
4612:
4604:
4596:
4588:
4580:
4572:
4564:
4556:
4548:
4540:
4532:
4524:
4516:
4508:
4499:
4496:
4495:
4490:
4483:
4482:
4479:
4478:
4475:
4474:
4472:
4471:
4463:
4455:
4447:
4439:
4431:
4422:
4420:
4416:
4415:
4413:
4412:
4404:
4396:
4388:
4380:
4372:
4364:
4356:
4348:
4339:
4337:
4333:
4332:
4330:
4329:
4320:
4318:
4314:
4313:
4311:
4310:
4302:
4294:
4286:
4278:
4269:
4267:
4266:After mistrial
4263:
4262:
4260:
4259:
4251:
4243:
4235:
4227:
4219:
4210:
4208:
4204:
4203:
4201:
4200:
4192:
4184:
4176:
4168:
4160:
4152:
4144:
4136:
4127:
4125:
4121:
4120:
4118:
4117:
4109:
4101:
4093:
4084:
4082:
4074:
4073:
4068:
4061:
4060:
4057:
4056:
4054:
4053:
4045:
4037:
4029:
4025:Maxwell v. Dow
4021:
4013:
4005:
3996:
3993:
3992:
3986:
3979:
3978:
3969:
3967:
3966:
3959:
3952:
3944:
3935:
3934:
3932:
3931:
3926:
3918:
3910:
3905:
3900:
3895:
3890:
3885:
3884:
3883:
3872:
3870:
3864:
3863:
3861:
3860:
3855:
3850:
3842:
3840:
3836:
3835:
3832:
3831:
3829:
3828:
3822:
3820:
3816:
3815:
3813:
3812:
3807:
3801:
3799:
3795:
3794:
3792:
3791:
3786:
3781:
3776:
3770:
3768:
3767:South Carolina
3764:
3763:
3761:
3760:
3755:
3750:
3748:William Blount
3744:
3742:
3741:North Carolina
3738:
3737:
3735:
3734:
3729:
3723:
3721:
3717:
3716:
3714:
3713:
3711:Daniel Carroll
3708:
3703:
3697:
3695:
3691:
3690:
3688:
3687:
3682:
3677:
3675:John Dickinson
3672:
3667:
3661:
3659:
3655:
3654:
3652:
3651:
3646:
3641:
3636:
3631:
3626:
3621:
3619:Thomas Mifflin
3616:
3610:
3608:
3604:
3603:
3601:
3600:
3595:
3590:
3588:David Brearley
3585:
3579:
3577:
3573:
3572:
3570:
3569:
3563:
3561:
3557:
3556:
3554:
3553:
3548:
3542:
3540:
3536:
3535:
3533:
3532:
3527:
3521:
3519:
3515:
3514:
3512:
3511:
3506:
3500:
3498:
3494:
3493:
3491:
3490:
3484:
3482:
3475:
3469:
3468:
3466:
3465:
3460:
3458:Taxation power
3455:
3450:
3445:
3440:
3435:
3430:
3425:
3420:
3415:
3410:
3405:
3403:Implied powers
3400:
3395:
3390:
3385:
3380:
3375:
3370:
3365:
3360:
3354:
3352:
3351:Interpretation
3348:
3347:
3345:
3344:
3339:
3334:
3316:
3311:
3306:
3299:
3294:
3289:
3284:
3279:
3274:
3269:
3264:
3259:
3254:
3249:
3247:Recommendation
3244:
3239:
3234:
3229:
3224:
3219:
3214:
3209:
3204:
3199:
3194:
3189:
3184:
3179:
3174:
3169:
3164:
3159:
3154:
3149:
3144:
3139:
3134:
3132:Fugitive Slave
3129:
3124:
3119:
3114:
3109:
3102:
3100:Excessive Bail
3097:
3092:
3087:
3082:
3077:
3072:
3067:
3062:
3057:
3052:
3047:
3042:
3037:
3032:
3027:
3022:
3017:
3012:
3007:
3002:
3000:Appropriations
2997:
2992:
2986:
2984:
2978:
2977:
2975:
2974:
2969:
2964:
2959:
2954:
2949:
2944:
2939:
2934:
2927:
2926:
2925:
2920:
2915:
2910:
2905:
2900:
2895:
2890:
2885:
2880:
2870:
2865:
2860:
2855:
2849:
2847:
2843:
2842:
2839:
2838:
2836:
2835:
2830:
2824:
2821:
2820:
2818:
2817:
2812:
2810:Single subject
2807:
2802:
2797:
2792:
2787:
2782:
2777:
2772:
2767:
2762:
2757:
2752:
2747:
2742:
2737:
2731:
2729:
2723:
2722:
2720:
2719:
2714:
2709:
2704:
2699:
2694:
2688:
2686:
2680:
2679:
2676:
2675:
2673:
2672:
2667:
2662:
2657:
2652:
2647:
2642:
2637:
2632:
2627:
2622:
2617:
2611:
2609:
2605:
2604:
2602:
2601:
2596:
2591:
2585:
2583:
2581:Reconstruction
2577:
2576:
2574:
2573:
2568:
2562:
2560:
2556:
2555:
2553:
2552:
2547:
2542:
2537:
2532:
2527:
2522:
2517:
2512:
2507:
2501:
2499:
2497:Bill of Rights
2486:
2480:
2479:
2477:
2476:
2471:
2466:
2461:
2456:
2451:
2446:
2441:
2435:
2433:
2429:
2428:
2423:
2421:
2420:
2413:
2406:
2398:
2392:
2391:
2380:
2365:
2346:
2345:External links
2343:
2341:
2340:
2315:
2287:
2262:
2236:
2208:
2182:
2157:
2139:
2114:
2096:
2083:The New Yorker
2066:
2040:
2034:978-0451403575
2033:
2015:
1984:
1959:
1934:
1904:
1879:
1877:___ (2024)
1853:
1838:
1812:
1787:
1762:
1737:
1725:
1713:
1697:Breed v. Jones
1688:
1668:
1644:
1619:
1591:
1566:
1554:
1542:
1517:
1492:
1467:
1442:
1417:
1392:
1367:
1356:(1): 229–243.
1340:
1321:(4): 773–803.
1301:
1277:
1252:
1241:
1222:
1220:
1217:
1209:
1208:
1205:
1201:
1194:
1193:
1189:
1181:
1180:
1177:
1174:
1170:
1163:
1149:18 U.S.C.
1125:
1119:
1058:North Carolina
945:
939:
918:
915:
884:
881:
838:courts-martial
754:
751:
726:
723:
706:
703:
698:
695:
663:Breed v. Jones
643:
640:
628:
625:
620:
617:
576:
573:
560:harmless error
484:
481:
477:finder of fact
471:
468:
466:
463:
382:
381:"Same offense"
379:
374:
373:
370:
367:
364:
335:
334:
332:
331:
324:
317:
309:
306:
305:
304:
303:
298:
293:
288:
283:
278:
273:
268:
263:
255:
254:
250:
249:
248:
247:
242:
237:
232:
227:
222:
217:
212:
207:
202:
197:
192:
187:
182:
177:
172:
167:
159:
158:
154:
153:
152:
151:
146:
141:
135:
134:
129:
121:
120:
116:
115:
114:
113:
108:
103:
98:
93:
88:
83:
75:
74:
70:
69:
68:
67:
62:
56:
55:
50:
42:
41:
37:
36:
28:
27:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4761:
4750:
4747:
4745:
4742:
4740:
4737:
4736:
4734:
4714:
4713:
4712:Vega v. Tekoh
4709:
4706:
4705:
4701:
4698:
4697:
4693:
4690:
4689:
4685:
4682:
4681:
4677:
4674:
4673:
4669:
4666:
4665:
4661:
4658:
4657:
4653:
4650:
4649:
4645:
4642:
4641:
4637:
4634:
4633:
4629:
4626:
4625:
4621:
4618:
4617:
4613:
4610:
4609:
4605:
4602:
4601:
4597:
4594:
4593:
4589:
4586:
4585:
4581:
4578:
4577:
4573:
4570:
4569:
4565:
4562:
4561:
4557:
4554:
4553:
4549:
4546:
4545:
4541:
4538:
4537:
4533:
4530:
4529:
4525:
4522:
4521:
4517:
4514:
4513:
4509:
4506:
4505:
4501:
4500:
4497:
4493:
4488:
4484:
4469:
4468:
4464:
4461:
4460:
4456:
4453:
4452:
4448:
4445:
4444:
4440:
4437:
4436:
4432:
4429:
4428:
4424:
4423:
4421:
4417:
4410:
4409:
4405:
4402:
4401:
4397:
4394:
4393:
4389:
4386:
4385:
4381:
4378:
4377:
4373:
4370:
4369:
4365:
4362:
4361:
4357:
4354:
4353:
4349:
4346:
4345:
4341:
4340:
4338:
4334:
4327:
4326:
4322:
4321:
4319:
4315:
4308:
4307:
4303:
4300:
4299:
4295:
4292:
4291:
4287:
4284:
4283:
4279:
4276:
4275:
4271:
4270:
4268:
4264:
4257:
4256:
4252:
4249:
4248:
4244:
4241:
4240:
4236:
4233:
4232:
4228:
4225:
4224:
4220:
4217:
4216:
4212:
4211:
4209:
4205:
4198:
4197:
4193:
4190:
4189:
4185:
4182:
4181:
4177:
4174:
4173:
4169:
4166:
4165:
4161:
4158:
4157:
4153:
4150:
4149:
4145:
4142:
4141:
4137:
4134:
4133:
4129:
4128:
4126:
4122:
4115:
4114:
4110:
4107:
4106:
4102:
4099:
4098:
4094:
4091:
4090:
4086:
4085:
4083:
4079:
4075:
4071:
4066:
4062:
4051:
4050:
4046:
4043:
4042:
4038:
4035:
4034:
4030:
4027:
4026:
4022:
4019:
4018:
4014:
4011:
4010:
4009:Ex parte Bain
4006:
4003:
4002:
3998:
3997:
3994:
3989:
3984:
3980:
3975:
3972:
3965:
3960:
3958:
3953:
3951:
3946:
3945:
3942:
3930:
3927:
3924:
3923:
3919:
3916:
3915:
3911:
3909:
3906:
3904:
3901:
3899:
3896:
3894:
3891:
3889:
3886:
3882:
3879:
3878:
3877:
3874:
3873:
3871:
3865:
3859:
3856:
3854:
3853:Jacob Shallus
3851:
3849:
3848:
3844:
3843:
3841:
3837:
3827:
3824:
3823:
3821:
3817:
3811:
3808:
3806:
3803:
3802:
3800:
3796:
3790:
3789:Pierce Butler
3787:
3785:
3782:
3780:
3777:
3775:
3774:John Rutledge
3772:
3771:
3769:
3765:
3759:
3756:
3754:
3751:
3749:
3746:
3745:
3743:
3739:
3733:
3732:James Madison
3730:
3728:
3725:
3724:
3722:
3718:
3712:
3709:
3707:
3704:
3702:
3701:James McHenry
3699:
3698:
3696:
3692:
3686:
3683:
3681:
3678:
3676:
3673:
3671:
3668:
3666:
3663:
3662:
3660:
3656:
3650:
3647:
3645:
3642:
3640:
3637:
3635:
3632:
3630:
3629:George Clymer
3627:
3625:
3624:Robert Morris
3622:
3620:
3617:
3615:
3612:
3611:
3609:
3605:
3599:
3596:
3594:
3591:
3589:
3586:
3584:
3581:
3580:
3578:
3574:
3568:
3565:
3564:
3562:
3558:
3552:
3551:Roger Sherman
3549:
3547:
3544:
3543:
3541:
3537:
3531:
3528:
3526:
3523:
3522:
3520:
3518:Massachusetts
3516:
3510:
3507:
3505:
3502:
3501:
3499:
3497:New Hampshire
3495:
3489:
3486:
3485:
3483:
3479:
3476:
3474:
3470:
3464:
3461:
3459:
3456:
3454:
3451:
3449:
3446:
3444:
3441:
3439:
3436:
3434:
3431:
3429:
3426:
3424:
3423:Plenary power
3421:
3419:
3416:
3414:
3411:
3409:
3406:
3404:
3401:
3399:
3396:
3394:
3393:Equal footing
3391:
3389:
3386:
3384:
3381:
3379:
3376:
3374:
3371:
3369:
3366:
3364:
3361:
3359:
3356:
3355:
3353:
3349:
3343:
3340:
3338:
3335:
3332:
3328:
3324:
3320:
3317:
3315:
3314:Trial by Jury
3312:
3310:
3307:
3304:
3300:
3298:
3295:
3293:
3290:
3288:
3285:
3283:
3280:
3278:
3275:
3273:
3270:
3268:
3265:
3263:
3260:
3258:
3255:
3253:
3250:
3248:
3245:
3243:
3240:
3238:
3235:
3233:
3230:
3228:
3225:
3223:
3220:
3218:
3215:
3213:
3210:
3208:
3205:
3203:
3200:
3198:
3195:
3193:
3190:
3188:
3185:
3183:
3180:
3178:
3175:
3173:
3170:
3168:
3167:Ineligibility
3165:
3163:
3162:Import-Export
3160:
3158:
3155:
3153:
3150:
3148:
3145:
3143:
3140:
3138:
3135:
3133:
3130:
3128:
3125:
3123:
3120:
3118:
3117:Free Exercise
3115:
3113:
3110:
3108:
3107:
3106:Ex Post Facto
3103:
3101:
3098:
3096:
3093:
3091:
3090:Establishment
3088:
3086:
3083:
3081:
3078:
3076:
3073:
3071:
3068:
3066:
3063:
3061:
3058:
3056:
3053:
3051:
3048:
3046:
3043:
3041:
3040:Confrontation
3038:
3036:
3033:
3031:
3028:
3026:
3023:
3021:
3018:
3016:
3013:
3011:
3008:
3006:
3003:
3001:
2998:
2996:
2993:
2991:
2988:
2987:
2985:
2983:
2979:
2973:
2970:
2968:
2965:
2963:
2960:
2958:
2955:
2953:
2950:
2948:
2945:
2943:
2940:
2938:
2935:
2933:
2932:
2928:
2924:
2923:Syng inkstand
2921:
2919:
2916:
2914:
2911:
2909:
2906:
2904:
2901:
2899:
2896:
2894:
2891:
2889:
2886:
2884:
2881:
2879:
2878:Virginia Plan
2876:
2875:
2874:
2871:
2869:
2866:
2864:
2861:
2859:
2856:
2854:
2851:
2850:
2848:
2844:
2834:
2831:
2829:
2826:
2825:
2822:
2816:
2813:
2811:
2808:
2806:
2805:School Prayer
2803:
2801:
2798:
2796:
2793:
2791:
2788:
2786:
2783:
2781:
2778:
2776:
2773:
2771:
2768:
2766:
2763:
2761:
2758:
2756:
2753:
2751:
2748:
2746:
2743:
2741:
2738:
2736:
2733:
2732:
2730:
2728:
2724:
2718:
2715:
2713:
2710:
2708:
2705:
2703:
2700:
2698:
2695:
2693:
2690:
2689:
2687:
2685:
2681:
2671:
2668:
2666:
2663:
2661:
2658:
2656:
2653:
2651:
2648:
2646:
2643:
2641:
2638:
2636:
2633:
2631:
2628:
2626:
2623:
2621:
2618:
2616:
2613:
2612:
2610:
2606:
2600:
2597:
2595:
2592:
2590:
2587:
2586:
2584:
2582:
2578:
2572:
2569:
2567:
2564:
2563:
2561:
2557:
2551:
2548:
2546:
2543:
2541:
2538:
2536:
2533:
2531:
2528:
2526:
2523:
2521:
2518:
2516:
2513:
2511:
2508:
2506:
2503:
2502:
2500:
2498:
2494:
2490:
2487:
2485:
2481:
2475:
2472:
2470:
2467:
2465:
2462:
2460:
2457:
2455:
2452:
2450:
2447:
2445:
2442:
2440:
2437:
2436:
2434:
2430:
2426:
2419:
2414:
2412:
2407:
2405:
2400:
2399:
2396:
2389:
2385:
2381:
2378:
2374:
2370:
2366:
2363:
2362:
2357:
2353:
2349:
2348:
2344:
2337:
2334:
2330:
2326:
2325:
2319:
2316:
2303:
2302:
2297:
2291:
2288:
2284:
2281:
2277:
2273:
2272:
2266:
2263:
2259:
2255:
2251:
2247:
2246:
2240:
2237:
2225:
2224:
2219:
2212:
2209:
2205:
2201:
2197:
2193:
2192:
2186:
2183:
2179:
2176:
2172:
2168:
2167:
2161:
2158:
2154:
2149:
2143:
2140:
2136:
2133:
2129:
2125:
2124:
2118:
2115:
2111:
2106:
2100:
2097:
2084:
2080:
2076:
2070:
2067:
2055:
2051:
2044:
2041:
2036:
2030:
2026:
2019:
2016:
2012:
2000:
1999:
1994:
1988:
1985:
1981:
1978:
1974:
1970:
1969:
1963:
1960:
1956:
1953:
1949:
1945:
1944:
1938:
1935:
1931:
1927:
1923:
1919:
1915:
1914:
1908:
1905:
1901:
1898:
1894:
1890:
1889:
1883:
1880:
1876:
1872:
1868:
1864:
1863:
1857:
1854:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1839:9780814782330
1835:
1831:
1826:
1825:
1816:
1813:
1809:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1797:
1791:
1788:
1784:
1781:
1777:
1773:
1772:
1766:
1763:
1759:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1747:
1741:
1738:
1734:
1729:
1726:
1722:
1717:
1714:
1710:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1698:
1692:
1689:
1685:
1680:
1679:
1672:
1669:
1665:
1662:
1658:
1655:
1654:
1648:
1645:
1641:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1629:
1623:
1620:
1616:
1613:
1609:
1605:
1604:
1598:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1576:
1570:
1567:
1563:
1558:
1555:
1551:
1546:
1543:
1539:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1527:
1521:
1518:
1514:
1511:
1507:
1503:
1502:
1496:
1493:
1489:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1477:
1471:
1468:
1464:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1452:
1446:
1443:
1439:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1427:
1421:
1418:
1414:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1402:
1401:Brown v. Ohio
1396:
1393:
1389:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1377:
1371:
1368:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1344:
1341:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1305:
1302:
1298:
1295:
1291:
1288:
1287:
1281:
1278:
1274:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1262:
1256:
1253:
1249:
1244:
1238:
1234:
1227:
1224:
1218:
1216:
1214:
1206:
1202:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1190:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1178:
1175:
1171:
1168:
1164:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1156:
1154:
1150:
1144:
1142:
1141:
1136:
1132:
1123:
1120:
1118:
1116:
1115:
1109:
1107:
1103:
1098:
1096:
1092:
1086:
1084:
1083:
1077:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1050:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1026:
1023:
1019:
1018:Terry Nichols
1015:
1009:
1007:
1003:
996:
994:
993:
988:
984:
978:
973:
971:
970:
965:
960:
957:
956:
950:
940:
938:
936:
932:
931:incorporation
928:
924:
917:Incorporation
916:
914:
909:
907:
900:
896:
894:
890:
882:
880:
878:
872:
870:
866:
862:
858:
853:
849:
847:
843:
839:
834:
831:
826:
821:
819:
815:
811:
807:
806:O. J. Simpson
803:
799:
798:
793:
789:
785:
781:
777:
772:
770:
769:
763:
759:
752:
750:
748:
747:
742:
738:
737:
731:
724:
722:
718:
716:
714:
704:
702:
696:
693:
688:
684:
679:
677:
671:
667:
665:
664:
657:
654:
650:
641:
639:
637:
636:
627:Insufficiency
626:
624:
618:
616:
614:
609:
607:
606:
605:habeas corpus
601:
596:
592:
591:
586:
582:
574:
572:
568:
563:
561:
557:
553:
549:
543:
538:
536:
535:
529:
527:
526:
519:
514:
510:
505:
501:
499:
498:
492:
490:
482:
480:
478:
469:
464:
462:
459:
455:
454:
447:
445:
444:
443:Brown v. Ohio
439:
438:
433:
432:
427:
423:
422:
417:
413:
409:
404:
402:
398:
394:
390:
389:
380:
378:
371:
368:
365:
362:
361:
360:
358:
356:
352:
346:
342:
330:
325:
323:
318:
316:
311:
310:
308:
307:
302:
299:
297:
294:
292:
289:
287:
284:
282:
279:
277:
274:
272:
269:
267:
264:
262:
259:
258:
257:
256:
251:
246:
243:
241:
238:
236:
235:Voting rights
233:
231:
228:
226:
223:
221:
218:
216:
213:
211:
208:
206:
203:
201:
198:
196:
193:
191:
188:
186:
183:
181:
178:
176:
173:
171:
168:
166:
163:
162:
161:
160:
155:
150:
147:
145:
142:
140:
137:
136:
133:
130:
128:
125:
124:
123:
122:
117:
112:
109:
107:
106:Equal footing
104:
102:
101:Republicanism
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
87:
84:
82:
79:
78:
77:
76:
71:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
54:
51:
49:
46:
45:
44:
43:
38:
34:
30:
29:
26:
20:
4710:
4702:
4694:
4686:
4678:
4670:
4662:
4654:
4646:
4638:
4630:
4622:
4614:
4606:
4598:
4590:
4582:
4574:
4566:
4558:
4550:
4542:
4534:
4526:
4518:
4510:
4502:
4465:
4457:
4449:
4441:
4433:
4425:
4406:
4398:
4390:
4382:
4374:
4366:
4358:
4350:
4342:
4323:
4304:
4296:
4288:
4280:
4272:
4253:
4245:
4237:
4229:
4221:
4213:
4194:
4186:
4178:
4170:
4162:
4154:
4146:
4138:
4130:
4111:
4103:
4095:
4087:
4069:
4047:
4039:
4031:
4023:
4015:
4007:
3999:
3920:
3912:
3845:
3644:James Wilson
3607:Pennsylvania
3504:John Langdon
3262:Speedy Trial
3104:
3064:
2995:Appointments
2929:
2712:Equal Rights
2608:20th century
2382:Hsin, JD S.
2359:
2338: (1980).
2322:
2318:
2308:September 8,
2306:. Retrieved
2299:
2290:
2285: (1960).
2269:
2265:
2243:
2239:
2227:. Retrieved
2221:
2211:
2189:
2185:
2180: (1978).
2164:
2160:
2147:
2142:
2137: (1985).
2121:
2117:
2104:
2099:
2087:. Retrieved
2082:
2069:
2057:. Retrieved
2053:
2043:
2024:
2018:
2010:
2003:. Retrieved
1996:
1987:
1982: (1922).
1966:
1962:
1941:
1937:
1911:
1907:
1902: (1969).
1886:
1882:
1860:
1856:
1823:
1815:
1810: (1984).
1794:
1790:
1785: (1982).
1769:
1765:
1760: (1992).
1744:
1740:
1732:
1728:
1720:
1716:
1711: (1975).
1695:
1691:
1676:
1671:
1666: (1978).
1651:
1647:
1642: (1824).
1626:
1622:
1617: (1970).
1601:
1589: (1910).
1573:
1569:
1561:
1557:
1549:
1545:
1540: (1957).
1524:
1520:
1499:
1495:
1490: (1975).
1474:
1470:
1465: (1896).
1449:
1445:
1440: (1970).
1424:
1420:
1415: (1977).
1399:
1395:
1390: (1932).
1374:
1370:
1353:
1349:
1343:
1318:
1314:
1304:
1299: (1992).
1284:
1280:
1275: (1975).
1259:
1255:
1246:
1232:
1226:
1210:
1195:
1182:
1157:
1145:
1138:
1134:
1127:
1121:
1112:
1110:
1099:
1094:
1087:
1080:
1078:
1062:1985 murders
1051:
1027:
1011:
1005:
1001:
998:
990:
980:
975:
967:
963:
961:
953:
951:
947:
920:
911:
902:
897:
886:
873:
859:, killer of
854:
850:
835:
822:
797:res judicata
795:
784:civil wrongs
773:
766:
764:
760:
756:
744:
734:
728:
719:
712:
708:
700:
690:
686:
681:
675:
673:
669:
661:
658:
649:Harry Aleman
645:
633:
630:
622:
610:
603:
588:
580:
578:
570:
565:
555:
551:
547:
545:
540:
532:
530:
523:
521:
516:
512:
507:
502:
495:
493:
486:
473:
451:
448:
441:
435:
429:
425:
419:
415:
411:
405:
395:ruled: "a...
386:
384:
375:
348:
340:
338:
3805:William Few
3685:Jacob Broom
3665:George Read
3539:Connecticut
3473:Signatories
3323:Legislative
3297:Territorial
3217:Presentment
3202:Origination
3157:Impeachment
3112:Extradition
3080:Engagements
3070:Due Process
3020:Citizenship
2707:Child Labor
2089:December 3,
2059:October 13,
2005:October 13,
1957: (1875)
1955:542, 550–51
1932: (1847)
1913:Fox v. Ohio
1515: (1962)
1153:§ 1111
1035:Rodney King
955:Fox v. Ohio
857:Jack McCall
802:civil court
713:Blockburger
683:conviction.
426:Blockburger
416:Blockburger
286:Purposivism
266:Originalism
230:Citizenship
220:Due process
91:Rule of law
4733:Categories
3988:Grand Jury
3917:(painting)
3869:and legacy
3727:John Blair
3576:New Jersey
3530:Rufus King
3428:Preemption
3342:War Powers
3277:Suspension
3095:Exceptions
2785:Human Life
2684:Unratified
2484:Amendments
1865:, No.
1219:References
814:California
782:, whereas
401:conspiracy
347:provides:
291:Textualism
96:Federalism
73:Principles
53:Amendments
3438:Saxbe fix
3327:Executive
3282:Take Care
3272:Supremacy
3147:Guarantee
3075:Elections
2846:Formation
2559:1795–1804
1848:246124973
1362:0026-6280
1165:court or
741:bad faith
730:Mistrials
600:new trial
3976:case law
3720:Virginia
3694:Maryland
3658:Delaware
3560:New York
3337:Vicinage
3331:Judicial
3055:Contract
3025:Commerce
2913:Printing
2727:Proposed
2439:Preamble
2432:Articles
2229:June 17,
2054:ABC News
2027:. Onyx.
1980:377, 382
1783:667, 676
1615:323, 331
1463:662, 671
1388:299, 304
1273:377, 388
1060:for the
865:Deadwood
593:. Cases
585:mistrial
556:Brantley
552:Brantley
518:degree."
48:Articles
40:Overview
3867:Display
3839:Related
3798:Georgia
3319:Vesting
3287:Takings
3172:Militia
3030:Compact
2982:Clauses
2908:Signing
2853:History
2373:Archive
2356:Archive
1721:Serfass
1335:1143871
933:by the
830:hearsay
692:system.
676:Serfass
397:offense
343:of the
60:History
4715:(2022)
4707:(2013)
4699:(2012)
4691:(2011)
4683:(2011)
4675:(2010)
4667:(2010)
4659:(2010)
4651:(2009)
4643:(2004)
4635:(2004)
4627:(2004)
4619:(2003)
4611:(2000)
4603:(2000)
4595:(1999)
4587:(1991)
4579:(1990)
4571:(1988)
4563:(1985)
4555:(1981)
4547:(1974)
4539:(1970)
4531:(1969)
4523:(1966)
4515:(1965)
4507:(1957)
4470:(1969)
4462:(1969)
4454:(1966)
4446:(1947)
4438:(1937)
4430:(1885)
4411:(2022)
4403:(2019)
4395:(2016)
4387:(2004)
4379:(1985)
4371:(1978)
4363:(1970)
4355:(1959)
4347:(1922)
4328:(1932)
4309:(2012)
4301:(1982)
4293:(1976)
4285:(1971)
4277:(1824)
4258:(2023)
4250:(1993)
4242:(1992)
4234:(1990)
4226:(1976)
4218:(1833)
4199:(2024)
4191:(2016)
4183:(2013)
4175:(1978)
4167:(1970)
4159:(1962)
4151:(1906)
4143:(1896)
4135:(1834)
4116:(1993)
4108:(1992)
4100:(1990)
4092:(1932)
4052:(2002)
4044:(1962)
4036:(1922)
4028:(1900)
4020:(1896)
4012:(1887)
4004:(1884)
3990:Clause
3925:(film)
3309:Treaty
3212:Postal
3207:Pardon
2252:,
2250:17-646
2248:, No.
2198:,
2196:15-108
2194:, No.
2151:,
2108:,
2031:
1928:)
1869:,
1867:22-721
1846:
1836:
1758:36, 49
1733:Aleman
1682:,
1360:
1333:
1248:crime…
1239:
1151:
1135:Petite
1124:policy
1122:Petite
1006:Barron
927:states
825:parole
776:crimes
542:Court.
399:and a
391:, the
253:Theory
4419:Other
2331:
2278:
2256:
2202:
2173:
2130:
1975:
1950:
1920:
1895:
1873:
1803:
1778:
1753:
1704:
1664:1, 11
1659:
1635:
1610:
1582:
1562:Green
1550:Green
1533:
1508:
1483:
1458:
1433:
1408:
1383:
1331:JSTOR
1292:
1268:
1095:three
1091:drone
887:The "
812:in a
743:. In
736:Perez
642:Fraud
581:final
548:Price
458:poker
434:. In
412:Felix
2333:U.S.
2310:2019
2280:U.S.
2258:U.S.
2231:2019
2204:U.S.
2175:U.S.
2132:U.S.
2091:2011
2061:2018
2029:ISBN
2007:2018
1977:U.S.
1952:U.S.
1922:U.S.
1897:U.S.
1875:U.S.
1844:OCLC
1834:ISBN
1805:U.S.
1780:U.S.
1755:U.S.
1706:U.S.
1661:U.S.
1637:U.S.
1612:U.S.
1584:U.S.
1535:U.S.
1510:U.S.
1485:U.S.
1460:U.S.
1435:U.S.
1410:U.S.
1385:U.S.
1358:ISSN
1294:U.S.
1270:U.S.
1237:ISBN
942:Dual
715:test
357:..."
355:limb
351:life
339:The
2474:VII
2454:III
2375:).
2371:" (
2358:).
2354:" (
2336:248
2329:444
2283:529
2276:361
2254:587
2200:579
2178:313
2171:435
2128:474
1973:260
1930:410
1926:How
1924:(5
1900:784
1893:395
1871:601
1808:203
1801:467
1776:456
1751:504
1709:519
1702:421
1657:437
1640:579
1608:398
1587:284
1580:217
1538:184
1531:355
1513:141
1506:369
1488:358
1481:420
1456:163
1438:436
1431:397
1413:161
1406:432
1381:284
1323:doi
1297:378
1290:503
1266:420
1204:and
1173:law
966:is
964:Fox
765:In
428:in
385:In
353:or
4735::
3329:/
3325:/
2670:27
2665:26
2660:25
2655:24
2650:23
2645:22
2640:21
2635:20
2630:19
2625:18
2620:17
2615:16
2599:15
2594:14
2589:13
2571:12
2566:11
2550:10
2469:VI
2459:IV
2449:II
2386:.
2327:,
2298:.
2274:,
2220:.
2169:,
2135:82
2126:,
2081:.
2052:.
2009:.
1995:.
1971:,
1948:92
1946:,
1918:46
1916:,
1891:,
1842:.
1832:.
1830:31
1799:,
1774:,
1749:,
1700:,
1633:22
1631:,
1606:,
1594:^
1578:,
1529:,
1504:,
1479:,
1454:,
1429:,
1404:,
1379:,
1354:62
1352:.
1329:.
1319:83
1317:.
1313:.
1264:,
1245:.
1188:or
995::
937:.
879:.
871:.
717:.
666::
537::
3963:e
3956:t
3949:v
3333:)
3321:(
3305:)
2545:9
2540:8
2535:7
2530:6
2525:5
2520:4
2515:3
2510:2
2505:1
2464:V
2444:I
2417:e
2410:t
2403:v
2312:.
2233:.
2093:.
2063:.
2037:.
1850:.
1364:.
1337:.
1325::
678::
328:e
321:t
314:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
