skip navigation


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: 155391 Find in a Library
Title: Constitutional Law: Double Jeopardy: Where Conspiracy To Commit a Crime Is Based on Previously Prosecuted Overt Acts, No Double Jeopardy Violation Exists
Journal: Mississippi Law Journal  Volume:62  Issue:1  Dated:(Spring 1992)  Pages:229-243
Author(s): C Shindala
Date Published: 1992
Page Count: 15
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: In its 1992 decision in United States v. Felix, the United States Supreme Court held that where the jury convicted the defendant of substantive offenses based on certain overt actions, a later prosecution for conspiracy supported by these actions did not create a double jeopardy violation.
Abstract: The Court chose to keep the doctrine separating the conspiracy to commit the crime from the commission of the crime itself, distinct from the line of cases developing various tests to determine when a double jeopardy violation occurs. In doing so, the Court relied solely on the longstanding rule of precedent determining that the conspiracy and the crime are not the same offense for double jeopardy purposes. In contrast, the Court struggles to interpret the relationship between other offenses for double jeopardy purposes through a series of unworkable tests. This result is an inconsistent method of determining which offenses are forbidden from prosecution. These inadequacies will undoubtedly lead to additional double jeopardy conflict requiring resolution by the Supreme Court. Footnotes
Main Term(s): US Supreme Court decisions
Index Term(s): Conspiracy; Jurisprudence; Right against double jeopardy
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*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.