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.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| |
rdfs:comment
| - 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. (en)
|
foaf:name
| - (en)
- Bartkus v. Illinois (en)
|
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
Dissent
| |
JoinDissent
| |
JoinMajority
| - Clark, Harlan, Whittaker, Stewart (en)
|
LawsApplied
| |
ParallelCitations
| |
USPage
| |
USVol
| |
ArgueDate
| |
ArgueYear
| |
case
| - Bartkus v. Illinois, (en)
|
DecideDate
| |
DecideYear
| |
findlaw
| |
fullname
| |
Holding
| - Coordination of federal officials with state officials did not implicate the double jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It also held that a defendant may be acquitted of a federal crime and convicted of a state crime, even if those crimes share the same evidence, without violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (en)
|
justia
| |
Litigants
| |
majority
| |
loc
| |
has abstract
| - Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959), is a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision held that coordination of federal officials with state officials did not implicate the double jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It also held that a defendant may be acquitted of a federal crime and convicted of a state crime, even if those crimes share the same evidence, without violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case established the dual sovereign exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause, enabling state and federal prosecutions for substantially similar events. (en)
|
ReargueDateA
| |
ReargueDateB
| |
ReargueYear
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
is Wikipage redirect
of | |
is Wikipage disambiguates
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |