Add to ORKGThe United States Supreme Court held that when relevant conduct is used to increase an accused\u27s sentence and the resulting sentence falls within the range specified by Congress, the resulting sentence is for the crime of conviction only, and the Government may subsequently prosecute the accused for the same conduct. Witte v. United States, 115 S. Ct. 2199 (1995)
As part of a continuing series of papers on impediments to the search for truth in criminal investig...
In Department of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, the United States Supreme Court found the enforcement of a ...
A preview of two 1996 Supreme Court cases. In the first case, US v. Ursery, a convicted narcotics de...
Every now and then a case ·comes along that tests the fundamental premises of a body of law. United ...
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that where the interests of the Commonwealth have been suffi...
This Recent Development first traces the evolution of the double jeopardy doctrine. The Recent Devel...
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has held that a finding on the defendant\u27s argument for dischar...
Familiar to most Americans, the double jeopardy clause (the clause) of the Fifth Amendment to the Un...
Although founding its decision upon the present inapplicability of the double jeopardy clause to the...
In the landmark decision of United States v. DiFrancesco, the Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decis...
Criminal defendants often are charged and convicted of multiple offenses. And often one offense is a...
How should the legal community think about double jeopardy in the wake of the Rodney King affair? Th...
It is, therefore, important in any analysis of the Ashe decision to examine the policies and purpose...
This Note argues that the application of the dual sovereignty doctrine to cases involving successive...
The Virginia Constitution provides: That in criminal prosecutions a man . . . shall not . . . be pu...
As part of a continuing series of papers on impediments to the search for truth in criminal investig...
In Department of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, the United States Supreme Court found the enforcement of a ...
A preview of two 1996 Supreme Court cases. In the first case, US v. Ursery, a convicted narcotics de...
Every now and then a case ·comes along that tests the fundamental premises of a body of law. United ...
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that where the interests of the Commonwealth have been suffi...
This Recent Development first traces the evolution of the double jeopardy doctrine. The Recent Devel...
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has held that a finding on the defendant\u27s argument for dischar...
Familiar to most Americans, the double jeopardy clause (the clause) of the Fifth Amendment to the Un...
Although founding its decision upon the present inapplicability of the double jeopardy clause to the...
In the landmark decision of United States v. DiFrancesco, the Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decis...
Criminal defendants often are charged and convicted of multiple offenses. And often one offense is a...
How should the legal community think about double jeopardy in the wake of the Rodney King affair? Th...
It is, therefore, important in any analysis of the Ashe decision to examine the policies and purpose...
This Note argues that the application of the dual sovereignty doctrine to cases involving successive...
The Virginia Constitution provides: That in criminal prosecutions a man . . . shall not . . . be pu...
As part of a continuing series of papers on impediments to the search for truth in criminal investig...
In Department of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, the United States Supreme Court found the enforcement of a ...
A preview of two 1996 Supreme Court cases. In the first case, US v. Ursery, a convicted narcotics de...