skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 147981 Find in a Library
Title: DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT - THE SUPREME COURT'S CURSORY TREATMENT OF UNDERLYING CONDUCT IN SUCCESSIVE PROSECUTIONS
Journal: Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology  Volume:83  Issue:4  Dated:(Winter 1993)  Pages:773-803
Author(s): A J Donofrio
Date Published: 1993
Page Count: 31
Type: Issue Overview
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This Note examines a United States Supreme Court decision regarding the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Abstract: In United States v. Felix, the United States Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not bar the prosecution of substantive drug offenses when the evidence used for such prosecution was introduced in prior prosecution of the same defendant for different, but related, offenses. To bolster its ruling on this issue, the Court relied on Dowling v. United States to find that introduction of relevant evidence of previously prosecuted misconduct is not the same as prosecution for that conduct. This Note argues that the Court correctly allowed prosecution under the Double Jeopardy Clause, but that the Court's analysis failed to rectify the controversy created by its holding in Grady v. Corbin. This Note further argues that the majority's rule failed to clarify the relevance of the Grady same conduct test, and proposes that the majority rule cannot provide defendants with sufficient constitutional protection. Footnotes
Main Term(s): Courts
Index Term(s): Controlled Substances; Criminal law
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=147981

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.