Add to ORKGThe Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that where the interests of the Commonwealth have been sufficiently vindicated in a federal prosecution, a subsequent state prosecution for conduct resultant from the same act will be barred. Commonwealth v. Mills, 447 Pa. 163, 286 A.2d 638 (1971)
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has held that where a trial judge sua sponte declares a mistrial w...
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution...
The purpose of this note is to emphasize that while the dual sovereignty doctrine is legally sound i...
This Note argues that the application of the dual sovereignty doctrine to cases involving successive...
In Benton v. Maryland, decided in June of this year, the Supreme Court explicitly extended fifth ame...
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has held that a finding on the defendant\u27s argument for dischar...
Although founding its decision upon the present inapplicability of the double jeopardy clause to the...
The United States Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment did not ...
The Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause is an analytically gnarly beast. What seems like a fairly ...
The United States Supreme Court held that when relevant conduct is used to increase an accused\u27s ...
It is, therefore, important in any analysis of the Ashe decision to examine the policies and purpose...
Every now and then a case ·comes along that tests the fundamental premises of a body of law. United ...
Under the judicially created dual-sovereignty exception, a defendant may be prosecuted by state and ...
This Comment has been prompted by two recent United States Supreme Court decisions, Bartkus v. Illin...
The Virginia Constitution provides: That in criminal prosecutions a man . . . shall not . . . be pu...
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has held that where a trial judge sua sponte declares a mistrial w...
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution...
The purpose of this note is to emphasize that while the dual sovereignty doctrine is legally sound i...
This Note argues that the application of the dual sovereignty doctrine to cases involving successive...
In Benton v. Maryland, decided in June of this year, the Supreme Court explicitly extended fifth ame...
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has held that a finding on the defendant\u27s argument for dischar...
Although founding its decision upon the present inapplicability of the double jeopardy clause to the...
The United States Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment did not ...
The Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause is an analytically gnarly beast. What seems like a fairly ...
The United States Supreme Court held that when relevant conduct is used to increase an accused\u27s ...
It is, therefore, important in any analysis of the Ashe decision to examine the policies and purpose...
Every now and then a case ·comes along that tests the fundamental premises of a body of law. United ...
Under the judicially created dual-sovereignty exception, a defendant may be prosecuted by state and ...
This Comment has been prompted by two recent United States Supreme Court decisions, Bartkus v. Illin...
The Virginia Constitution provides: That in criminal prosecutions a man . . . shall not . . . be pu...
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has held that where a trial judge sua sponte declares a mistrial w...
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution...
The purpose of this note is to emphasize that while the dual sovereignty doctrine is legally sound i...