Bartkus v. Illinois
Primary source
Background below is sourced from Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 4.0). Edits made by Wikipedia editors after our last scrape may not appear here.
Background
Bartkus v. Illinois
Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959), is a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court . The decision held that coordination of federal officials with state officials did not implicate the double jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution . It also held that a defendant may be acquitted of a federal crime and convicted of a state crime, even if those crimes share the same evidence, without violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment .
English Wikisource has original text related to this article:
**Bartkus v. Illinois **
The case established the dual sovereign exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause, enabling state and federal prosecutions for substantially similar events.
External links
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bartkus_v._Illinois&action=edit§ion=1 "Edit section: External links")
- Text of Bartkus v. Illinois, U.S. 121 (1959) is available from: Findlaw Google Scholar Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Library of Congress
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bartkus_v._Illinois&oldid=1351340203 "
People also ask on Google
Questions and answers below are surfaced by Google Search. Each answer is a short preview quoted from the source shown; follow the source link for the full context.
How is the Supreme Court's ruling in Bartkus v. Illinois 1959 significant to the concept of double jeopardy?+
Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 140-52 (1959). Every citizen of the United States is also a citizen of a State or territory. In other words, because the laws of two sovereigns were applicable, the same act produced two offenses, so that Bartkus in the second prosecution was not put in jeopardy for the "same" offense.
Sourced from A Critique of Bartkus v. Illinois and Abbate v. United States
Related searches
- Bartkus v illinois summary
- Gamble v United States
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.