529:
insufficient evidence and was therefore acquitted of the charges. However, shortly after, another suit was brought against the petitioner for the robbery of another man that was present at the same incident. During this trial, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the lower decisions and held that the petitioner could not be prosecuted twice for the same course of events. Justice
Brennan provided a concurring opinion, stating that the decision should have been reversed simply because the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits it. Justice Burger provided a dissenting opinion in which he expressed that the petitioner's second trial was not double jeopardy because it was a different complainant.
478:, was considered in answering the issue brought forth in Waller's case. Florida asserted that there is a separate sovereignty between the state government and its municipalities, similar to the sovereignty distinguished between the federal government and the states. This is not the only state to assert this theory. However, the Florida courts were found to have error in their holdings that being tried in a municipal court is not a bar for being tried at the state level for the same offense. Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court found that it was considered double jeopardy to be held for the same charge once by a state, and another by a local or municipal court, thereby making the state of Florida's actions unconstitutional.
31:
403:, that had previously allowed double prosecutions if they took place on a state level and then on a federal level, but obviously these precedents didn't last long. The U.S. Supreme Court has distinguished between the sovereignty of the states and the federal government regarding some principles, but they have rejected the claim that the separation of sovereignty is so far that double jeopardy need not be acknowledged by the states.
511:
community for that monstrosity that hung there until 1966," said
Yeshitela, chairman of the African People's Socialist Party. When I tore that mural down, I was castigated in a lot of quarters as a criminal and I in fact served time in prison for it." Other African-Americans in the community shared in Yeshitela's resentment of the St. Petersburg City Council's new decisions regarding the mural.
412:
whites. The protestors then continued to march through St. Petersburg until they were stopped and subsequently arrested by law enforcement. The police eventually obtained the mural from the protestors, but only after a scuffle resulting in the mural's damaged condition. The City of St. Petersburg charged Waller and five others with the violation of destruction of city property and disorderly
665:
416:. He was found guilty for both counts in the municipal court and was sentenced to 180 days in the county jail. During the municipal court process, Waller made the statement that "What happened Dec. 29, 1966, occurred as a result of a program I initiated to bring the plight of my people to the attention of the people of St. Petersburg..."
435:. The Florida Supreme Court denied relief. Waller was then tried in the Circuit Court of Florida by a jury, where he was found guilty of the grand larceny felony charge. He was then sentenced to six months to five years in prison, minus 170 of the days from his previous 180-day municipal court sentence.
528:
because it was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in the same year and both cases questioned the application of double jeopardy in the states. The petitioner was convicted of robbing one man who was playing poker with five others. During the trial, the jury found the petitioner to be not guilty due to
449:
The United States
Supreme Court then granted review for this case, with Leslie H. Levinson from Gainesville, Florida representing petitioner Joseph Waller and George Georgieff from Tallahassee, Florida as representation for the respondent. The case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on November
540:
established the presence and extension of the Fifth
Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause in the states and their municipalities and further clarified discrepancies that existed in a large portion of the states. The details of the case also stood on a monumental level regarding the civil rights movement
506:
In July 1998, St. Petersburg City
Council members approved a plan that outlined a replacement mural to hang where the former one once hung. The proposed new mural was a landscape oil painting of water and palm trees and is one of two created by the Tarpon Springs artist Christopher Still that were
510:
When
Yeshitela (formally Waller, Jr.) learned of the new mural plans, he felt that an apology on behalf of the city was necessary. According to him, "It seems to me that this City Council, which is talking about putting a mural in that spot, should be obligated to make an apology to the African
394:
and which circumstances allowed for multiple prosecutions. Some states theorized that the judicial relationship between the municipalities and the states was relative to the relationship between the state government and the federal government. This justification is similar to a dual sovereignty
411:
Waller was one of many who led a protest in St. Petersburg, Florida on
December 29, 1966. During this protest, they marched to the St. Petersburg City Hall, where they removed a racially controversial mural from the wall. The mural exhibited a group of Negroes musically entertaining a group of
498:. However, he furthered his opinion by stating that a second trial is barred if it occurs in the same state as the first unless it falls under one of the exceptions to the "same transaction" rule, which provides the legal exceptions to double jeopardy that would be considered permissible.
344:
of the
Constitution in enacting their own specific provisions regarding double jeopardy. Palko essentially gave the states full discretion in how they conducted double jeopardy prosecutions, with the exception that they followed the procedural
507:
placed above the marble staircases in the city hall that led to the council's chambers. The two paintings are 78 inches by 118 inches and were purchased by the city of St. Petersburg for $ 50,000 as a part of their public arts program.
721:
Constitutional Law: Double
Jeopardy: Prosecutions by Both a City and a State for an Identical Offense as a Violation of the Prohibition against Double Jeopardy: Waller v. State. Michigan Law Review, Vol. 68, No. 2 (Dec., 1969), pp.
466:. The question was whether or not two courts in the same state can place defendants on trial for the same crime, and whether or not this constituted double jeopardy. Double jeopardy provisions were made applicable to the states in
671:
1825:
334:
in regards to local and state ordinances and provisions. In fact, before Waller, about half of the states allowed for these double prosecutions, and some lower federal courts permitted it as well.
442:, he was denied of his double jeopardy claim. The District Court's rejection acknowledged that the courts' actions were based on the same acts as those involved in the two City of St. Petersburg
1830:
367:
957:
929:
889:
790:
765:
740:
699:
652:
550:
318:
and has started branches in the Uhuru House
Centers of St. Petersburg, FL and Oakland, FL. This case was significant in propelling Yeshitela's path toward advocacy and activism.
163:
143:
127:
72:
1052:
359:
341:
1043:
1055:
378:, it became almost inevitable that the various state provisions outlining multiple prosecutions for the same instance be re-evaluated, some of them before the
1820:
183:
The Double Jeopardy Clause protects defendants from successive prosecutions by states and municipalities for offenses based on the same criminal conduct.
395:
embedded in the states' legislation which permits those multiple prosecutions for the same occurrences and crimes. There have been a few cases, such as
446:, but still did not find Waller to be subject to double jeopardy. Waller's petition for a writ of certiorari to the Florida Supreme Court was denied.
307:
1835:
1524:
1036:
572:
363:
35:
1069:
849:
439:
111:
1673:
1269:
218:
1449:
1029:
294:
protects defendants from successive prosecutions by states and municipalities for offenses based on the same criminal conduct.
311:
1336:
1473:
1406:
1170:
1213:
287:
1761:
1689:
1098:
423:, which was based on the same acts with which he was charged against by the City of St. Petersburg. He moved for a
340:
was the dominant precedent at the time, which gave permission for the individual states to essentially ignore the
1573:
1237:
1114:
494:, in which he agreed with the majority that municipal and state courts within the same state are not separately
1681:
1540:
884:
474:
1489:
1729:
1585:
1721:
1481:
1425:
1371:
1304:
1296:
1229:
1130:
1021:
760:
487:
1221:
1004:
1705:
1649:
1355:
1328:
1320:
1253:
1194:
1186:
1151:
331:
291:
226:
1753:
1625:
1593:
1465:
1363:
1082:
961:
933:
893:
871:
794:
769:
744:
703:
656:
585:
428:
167:
147:
131:
123:
64:
1609:
911:
Caldwell, Alicia. "Mural to Grace City Hall's Blank Walls Again." St. Petersburg Times, July 18, 1998.
431:
to prevent a second trial in the circuit court, due to his claim that a second trial would constitute
1516:
1387:
694:
336:
986:
1745:
1713:
1665:
1657:
1617:
1433:
1277:
785:
424:
413:
1697:
1633:
1601:
1548:
1532:
1122:
977:
735:
602:
491:
468:
463:
379:
354:
327:
214:
1737:
1379:
1261:
623:
242:
1785:
1641:
1508:
1457:
594:
459:
198:
1777:
1312:
1245:
1178:
924:
556:
443:
432:
391:
303:
968:
867:
845:
159:
119:
107:
1769:
1106:
995:
936:
896:
797:
772:
747:
706:
659:
315:
230:
170:
155:
1814:
1793:
1090:
390:
Before Waller was decided, states had different qualifications for what constituted
684:
Landry, Sue and Rogers, David K. "A Long Road of Rage." St. Petersburg Times, 1996.
830:"Judge Phillips Studies Waller's Bid for Bail." St. Petersburg Times, Jan 6, 1968.
67:
346:
238:
206:
115:
83:
627:
495:
79:
614:
Shuford, B. (1972). "Double Jeopardy: A Protection or an Empty Promise?".
606:
420:
1013:
104:
598:
310:(SNCC). During the 1950s and 1960s, he actively participated in the
419:
Waller was subsequently charged by the State of Florida for grand
259:
Burger, joined by Black, Douglas, Harlan, Stewart, White, Marshall
1571:
1149:
1067:
1025:
30:
450:
13, 1969, and the decision was handed down on April 6, 1970.
352:
However, this line of precedents was replaced by another,
462:
wrote the majority opinion in this case on behalf of the
672:
public domain material from this U.S government document
1826:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
551:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 397
330:
had not definitively ruled on the application of the
158:(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972); cert. denied, 276 So. 2d
717:
715:
1500:
1417:
1398:
1347:
1288:
1205:
1162:
814:
812:
810:
808:
806:
271:
263:
255:
250:
187:
177:
138:
96:
91:
59:
49:
42:
23:
573:"Unresolved Issues in the Law of Double Jeopardy:
54:Joseph Waller, Jr., Petitioner v. State of Florida
907:
905:
366:and made applicable to the states through the
1831:United States Double Jeopardy Clause case law
1037:
286:, 397 U.S. 387 (1970), was a decision by the
8:
306:, was a former member and organizer of the
1568:
1159:
1146:
1064:
1044:
1030:
1022:
20:
308:Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee
730:
728:
919:
917:
641:
1525:Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber
18:1970 United States Supreme Court case
7:
302:Joseph Waller, Jr., also known as
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
1821:United States Supreme Court cases
964:387 (1970) is available from:
440:Florida District Court of Appeals
1270:Bravo-Fernandez v. United States
663:
29:
314:. Today, he is chairman of the
1836:1970 in United States case law
312:American Civil Rights Movement
1:
1053:United States Fifth Amendment
1474:Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle
1407:Blockburger v. United States
1171:Blockburger v. United States
571:Schaefer, Walter V. (1970).
541:in St. Petersburg, Florida.
472:. This case, in addition to
438:Upon Waller's appeal to the
374:case. Due to the holding in
1214:United States v. Randenbush
362:Double Jeopardy Clause was
288:United States Supreme Court
162:(Fla. 1973); cert. denied,
150:914 (1970); on remand,
1852:
1762:J. D. B. v. North Carolina
1690:Dickerson v. United States
1099:Wong Wing v. United States
1014:Oyez (oral argument audio)
670:This article incorporates
370:, overruling the previous
1674:Mitchell v. United States
1580:
1574:Self-Incrimination Clause
1567:
1418:Dual sovereignty doctrine
1238:Fong Foo v. United States
1163:Meaning of "same offense"
1158:
1145:
1115:United States v. Moreland
1077:
1063:
322:Previous Legal Precedents
192:
182:
28:
1682:United States v. Hubbell
1541:North Carolina v. Pearce
1490:Denezpi v. United States
1450:United States v. Wheeler
885:North Carolina v. Pearce
475:North Carolina v. Pearce
349:of the judicial system.
43:Argued November 13, 1969
1730:Corley v. United States
1722:United States v. Patane
1586:Curcio v. United States
1482:Gamble v. United States
1372:United States v. Dinitz
1305:Ludwig v. Massachusetts
1297:United States v. Wilson
1230:Burton v. United States
1131:United States v. Cotton
761:Abbate v. United States
488:William J. Brennan, Jr.
397:Abbate v. United States
1706:Yarborough v. Alvarado
1426:United States v. Lanza
1356:United States v. Perez
1337:Smith v. United States
1329:United States v. Dixon
1321:United States v. Felix
1254:Burks v. United States
1195:United States v. Dixon
1187:United States v. Felix
1152:Double Jeopardy Clause
868:221 So. 2d 749
846:213 So. 2d 623
821:, 397 U.S. at 388-396.
332:Double Jeopardy Clause
326:Before this case, the
292:Double Jeopardy Clause
290:, which held that the
227:William J. Brennan Jr.
126:1968); cert. granted,
1754:Berghuis v. Thompkins
1594:Griffin v. California
1466:United States v. Lara
1364:United States v. Jorn
1222:Ball v. United States
1083:Hurtado v. California
586:California Law Review
429:Florida Supreme Court
118:. denied, 221 So. 2d
45:Decided April 6, 1970
1650:Doe v. United States
1517:Palko v. Connecticut
1388:Blueford v. Arkansas
695:Palko v. Connecticut
368:Fourteenth Amendment
358:. In this case, the
337:Palko v. Connecticut
1746:Maryland v. Shatzer
1714:Missouri v. Seibert
1666:McNeil v. Wisconsin
1658:Illinois v. Perkins
1618:Williams v. Florida
1434:Bartkus v. Illinois
1399:Multiple punishment
1278:McElrath v. Georgia
1005:Library of Congress
850:Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
786:Bartkus v. Illinois
425:writ of prohibition
414:breach of the peace
401:Bartkus v. Illinois
112:Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1698:Chavez v. Martinez
1634:Edwards v. Arizona
1626:Michigan v. Tucker
1602:Miranda v. Arizona
1549:Benton v. Maryland
1533:Baxstrom v. Herold
1123:Beck v. Washington
1056:criminal procedure
736:Benton v. Maryland
616:Florida Law Review
492:concurring opinion
469:Benton v. Maryland
464:U.S. Supreme Court
380:U.S. Supreme Court
355:Benton v. Maryland
328:U.S. Supreme Court
215:William O. Douglas
203:Associate Justices
142:Rehearing denied,
78:90 S.Ct. 1184; 25
1808:
1807:
1804:
1803:
1738:Florida v. Powell
1610:Boulden v. Holman
1563:
1562:
1559:
1558:
1442:Waller v. Florida
1380:Oregon v. Kennedy
1262:Evans v. Michigan
1141:
1140:
954:Waller v. Florida
649:Waller v. Florida
538:Waller v. Florida
502:Mural Replacement
283:Waller v. Florida
279:
278:
243:Thurgood Marshall
219:John M. Harlan II
24:Waller v. Florida
1843:
1786:Salinas v. Texas
1642:Oregon v. Elstad
1569:
1509:Ex parte Bigelow
1458:Heath v. Alabama
1289:After conviction
1160:
1147:
1065:
1046:
1039:
1032:
1023:
1018:
1012:
1009:
1003:
1000:
994:
991:
985:
982:
976:
973:
967:
940:
921:
912:
909:
900:
881:
875:
865:
859:
853:
843:
837:
831:
828:
822:
816:
801:
782:
776:
757:
751:
732:
723:
719:
710:
691:
685:
682:
676:
667:
666:
646:
631:
610:
524:is important to
460:Warren E. Burger
386:Dual Sovereignty
199:Warren E. Burger
188:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
1851:
1850:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1800:
1778:Howes v. Fields
1576:
1555:
1496:
1413:
1394:
1343:
1313:Grady v. Corbin
1284:
1246:Ashe v. Swenson
1206:After acquittal
1201:
1179:Grady v. Corbin
1154:
1137:
1073:
1059:
1050:
1016:
1010:
1007:
1001:
998:
992:
989:
983:
980:
974:
971:
965:
949:
944:
943:
925:Ashe v. Swenson
922:
915:
910:
903:
882:
878:
863:Waller v. State
861:
860:
856:
841:Waller v. State
839:
838:
834:
829:
825:
817:
804:
783:
779:
758:
754:
733:
726:
720:
713:
692:
688:
683:
679:
664:
647:
643:
638:
613:
599:10.2307/3479664
570:
567:
565:Further reading
557:Ashe v. Swenson
547:
535:
521:Ashe v. Swenson
517:
515:Ashe v. Swenson
504:
484:
456:
433:double jeopardy
409:
392:double jeopardy
388:
360:Fifth Amendment
342:Fifth Amendment
324:
304:Omali Yeshitela
300:
241:
229:
217:
152:Waller v. State
134:975 (1969).
101:Waller v. State
87:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
1849:
1847:
1839:
1838:
1833:
1828:
1823:
1813:
1812:
1806:
1805:
1802:
1801:
1799:
1798:
1790:
1782:
1774:
1770:Bobby v. Dixon
1766:
1758:
1750:
1742:
1734:
1726:
1718:
1710:
1702:
1694:
1686:
1678:
1670:
1662:
1654:
1646:
1638:
1630:
1622:
1614:
1606:
1598:
1590:
1581:
1578:
1577:
1572:
1565:
1564:
1561:
1560:
1557:
1556:
1554:
1553:
1545:
1537:
1529:
1521:
1513:
1504:
1502:
1498:
1497:
1495:
1494:
1486:
1478:
1470:
1462:
1454:
1446:
1438:
1430:
1421:
1419:
1415:
1414:
1412:
1411:
1402:
1400:
1396:
1395:
1393:
1392:
1384:
1376:
1368:
1360:
1351:
1349:
1348:After mistrial
1345:
1344:
1342:
1341:
1333:
1325:
1317:
1309:
1301:
1292:
1290:
1286:
1285:
1283:
1282:
1274:
1266:
1258:
1250:
1242:
1234:
1226:
1218:
1209:
1207:
1203:
1202:
1200:
1199:
1191:
1183:
1175:
1166:
1164:
1156:
1155:
1150:
1143:
1142:
1139:
1138:
1136:
1135:
1127:
1119:
1111:
1107:Maxwell v. Dow
1103:
1095:
1087:
1078:
1075:
1074:
1068:
1061:
1060:
1051:
1049:
1048:
1041:
1034:
1026:
1020:
1019:
987:Google Scholar
948:
947:External links
945:
942:
941:
913:
901:
876:
854:
832:
823:
802:
777:
752:
724:
711:
686:
677:
640:
639:
637:
634:
633:
632:
611:
593:(2): 391–404.
566:
563:
562:
561:
553:
546:
543:
534:
531:
516:
513:
503:
500:
483:
480:
458:Chief Justice
455:
452:
408:
405:
387:
384:
323:
320:
316:Uhuru Movement
299:
296:
277:
276:
273:
269:
268:
265:
261:
260:
257:
253:
252:
248:
247:
246:
245:
231:Potter Stewart
204:
201:
196:
190:
189:
185:
184:
180:
179:
175:
174:
140:
136:
135:
98:
94:
93:
89:
88:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1848:
1837:
1834:
1832:
1829:
1827:
1824:
1822:
1819:
1818:
1816:
1796:
1795:
1794:Vega v. Tekoh
1791:
1788:
1787:
1783:
1780:
1779:
1775:
1772:
1771:
1767:
1764:
1763:
1759:
1756:
1755:
1751:
1748:
1747:
1743:
1740:
1739:
1735:
1732:
1731:
1727:
1724:
1723:
1719:
1716:
1715:
1711:
1708:
1707:
1703:
1700:
1699:
1695:
1692:
1691:
1687:
1684:
1683:
1679:
1676:
1675:
1671:
1668:
1667:
1663:
1660:
1659:
1655:
1652:
1651:
1647:
1644:
1643:
1639:
1636:
1635:
1631:
1628:
1627:
1623:
1620:
1619:
1615:
1612:
1611:
1607:
1604:
1603:
1599:
1596:
1595:
1591:
1588:
1587:
1583:
1582:
1579:
1575:
1570:
1566:
1551:
1550:
1546:
1543:
1542:
1538:
1535:
1534:
1530:
1527:
1526:
1522:
1519:
1518:
1514:
1511:
1510:
1506:
1505:
1503:
1499:
1492:
1491:
1487:
1484:
1483:
1479:
1476:
1475:
1471:
1468:
1467:
1463:
1460:
1459:
1455:
1452:
1451:
1447:
1444:
1443:
1439:
1436:
1435:
1431:
1428:
1427:
1423:
1422:
1420:
1416:
1409:
1408:
1404:
1403:
1401:
1397:
1390:
1389:
1385:
1382:
1381:
1377:
1374:
1373:
1369:
1366:
1365:
1361:
1358:
1357:
1353:
1352:
1350:
1346:
1339:
1338:
1334:
1331:
1330:
1326:
1323:
1322:
1318:
1315:
1314:
1310:
1307:
1306:
1302:
1299:
1298:
1294:
1293:
1291:
1287:
1280:
1279:
1275:
1272:
1271:
1267:
1264:
1263:
1259:
1256:
1255:
1251:
1248:
1247:
1243:
1240:
1239:
1235:
1232:
1231:
1227:
1224:
1223:
1219:
1216:
1215:
1211:
1210:
1208:
1204:
1197:
1196:
1192:
1189:
1188:
1184:
1181:
1180:
1176:
1173:
1172:
1168:
1167:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1148:
1144:
1133:
1132:
1128:
1125:
1124:
1120:
1117:
1116:
1112:
1109:
1108:
1104:
1101:
1100:
1096:
1093:
1092:
1091:Ex parte Bain
1088:
1085:
1084:
1080:
1079:
1076:
1071:
1066:
1062:
1057:
1054:
1047:
1042:
1040:
1035:
1033:
1028:
1027:
1024:
1015:
1006:
997:
988:
979:
978:CourtListener
970:
963:
959:
955:
951:
950:
946:
938:
935:
931:
927:
926:
920:
918:
914:
908:
906:
902:
898:
895:
891:
887:
886:
880:
877:
873:
869:
864:
858:
855:
851:
847:
842:
836:
833:
827:
824:
820:
815:
813:
811:
809:
807:
803:
799:
796:
792:
788:
787:
781:
778:
774:
771:
767:
763:
762:
756:
753:
749:
746:
742:
738:
737:
731:
729:
725:
718:
716:
712:
708:
705:
701:
697:
696:
690:
687:
681:
678:
675:
673:
662: (1970).
661:
658:
654:
650:
645:
642:
635:
629:
625:
621:
617:
612:
608:
604:
600:
596:
592:
588:
587:
582:
580:
576:
569:
568:
564:
559:
558:
554:
552:
549:
548:
544:
542:
539:
532:
530:
527:
523:
522:
514:
512:
508:
501:
499:
497:
493:
489:
481:
479:
477:
476:
471:
470:
465:
461:
453:
451:
447:
445:
441:
436:
434:
430:
426:
422:
417:
415:
406:
404:
402:
398:
393:
385:
383:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
356:
350:
348:
343:
339:
338:
333:
329:
321:
319:
317:
313:
309:
305:
297:
295:
293:
289:
285:
284:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
251:Case opinions
249:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
205:
202:
200:
197:
195:Chief Justice
194:
193:
191:
186:
181:
176:
172:
169:
165:
161:
157:
154:, 270 So. 2d
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
109:
106:
102:
99:
95:
90:
85:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
1792:
1784:
1776:
1768:
1760:
1752:
1744:
1736:
1728:
1720:
1712:
1704:
1696:
1688:
1680:
1672:
1664:
1656:
1648:
1640:
1632:
1624:
1616:
1608:
1600:
1592:
1584:
1547:
1539:
1531:
1523:
1515:
1507:
1488:
1480:
1472:
1464:
1456:
1448:
1441:
1440:
1432:
1424:
1405:
1386:
1378:
1370:
1362:
1354:
1335:
1327:
1319:
1311:
1303:
1295:
1276:
1268:
1260:
1252:
1244:
1236:
1228:
1220:
1212:
1193:
1185:
1177:
1169:
1129:
1121:
1113:
1105:
1097:
1089:
1081:
953:
939: (1970).
923:
899: (1969).
883:
879:
862:
857:
840:
835:
826:
818:
800: (1959).
784:
780:
775: (1959).
759:
755:
750: (1969).
734:
709: (1937).
693:
689:
680:
669:
648:
644:
619:
615:
590:
584:
578:
574:
555:
537:
536:
525:
520:
519:
518:
509:
505:
485:
473:
467:
457:
448:
437:
418:
410:
400:
396:
389:
375:
371:
364:incorporated
353:
351:
335:
325:
301:
282:
281:
280:
234:
222:
210:
173: (1973).
151:
100:
92:Case history
71:
53:
15:
874: 1968).
852: 1968).
347:due process
272:Concurrence
264:Concurrence
239:Byron White
1815:Categories
1070:Grand Jury
636:References
533:Conclusion
482:Concurring
444:ordinances
407:Case Facts
298:Background
207:Hugo Black
139:Subsequent
84:U.S. LEXIS
82:435; 1970
628:1045-4241
496:sovereign
80:L. Ed. 2d
60:Citations
1058:case law
952:Text of
722:336-346.
545:See also
490:wrote a
486:Justice
454:Decision
256:Majority
969:Cornell
622:: 838.
607:3479664
427:in the
421:larceny
275:Brennan
178:Holding
114:1968);
1797:(2022)
1789:(2013)
1781:(2012)
1773:(2011)
1765:(2011)
1757:(2010)
1749:(2010)
1741:(2010)
1733:(2009)
1725:(2004)
1717:(2004)
1709:(2004)
1701:(2003)
1693:(2000)
1685:(2000)
1677:(1999)
1669:(1991)
1661:(1990)
1653:(1988)
1645:(1985)
1637:(1981)
1629:(1974)
1621:(1970)
1613:(1969)
1605:(1966)
1597:(1965)
1589:(1957)
1552:(1969)
1544:(1969)
1536:(1966)
1528:(1947)
1520:(1937)
1512:(1885)
1493:(2022)
1485:(2019)
1477:(2016)
1469:(2004)
1461:(1985)
1453:(1978)
1445:(1970)
1437:(1959)
1429:(1922)
1410:(1932)
1391:(2012)
1383:(1982)
1375:(1976)
1367:(1971)
1359:(1824)
1340:(2023)
1332:(1993)
1324:(1992)
1316:(1990)
1308:(1976)
1300:(1833)
1281:(2024)
1273:(2016)
1265:(2013)
1257:(1978)
1249:(1970)
1241:(1962)
1233:(1906)
1225:(1896)
1217:(1834)
1198:(1993)
1190:(1992)
1182:(1990)
1174:(1932)
1134:(2002)
1126:(1962)
1118:(1922)
1110:(1900)
1102:(1896)
1094:(1887)
1086:(1884)
1072:Clause
1017:
1011:
1008:
1002:
999:
996:Justia
993:
990:
984:
981:
975:
972:
966:
928:,
888:,
870: (
866:,
848: (
844:,
819:Waller
789:,
764:,
739:,
698:,
668:
651:,
626:
605:
575:Waller
560:(1970)
526:Waller
376:Benton
237:
235:·
233:
225:
223:·
221:
213:
211:·
209:
105:So. 2d
103:, 213
1501:Other
960:
932:
892:
793:
768:
743:
702:
655:
603:JSTOR
372:Palko
267:Black
166:
146:
130:
97:Prior
962:U.S.
934:U.S.
894:U.S.
872:Fla.
795:U.S.
770:U.S.
745:U.S.
704:U.S.
657:U.S.
624:ISSN
579:Ashe
577:and
399:and
168:U.S.
148:U.S.
132:U.S.
124:Fla.
116:cert
73:more
65:U.S.
63:397
958:397
937:436
930:397
897:711
890:395
798:121
791:359
773:187
766:359
748:784
741:395
707:317
700:309
660:387
653:397
595:doi
171:945
164:414
160:489
144:398
128:395
120:749
108:623
68:387
1817::
956:,
916:^
904:^
805:^
727:^
714:^
620:25
618:.
601:.
591:58
589:.
583:.
382:.
156:26
86:52
1045:e
1038:t
1031:v
674:.
630:.
609:.
597::
581:"
122:(
110:(
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.