Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Alabama opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2010 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Lanzagreen2 sentences2010When a defendant in a single act violates the ‘peace and dignity’ of two sovereigns by breaking the laws of each, he has committed two distinct ‘offenses.’ United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 382 (1922). 2000When a defendant in a single act violates the "peace and dignity" of two sovereigns by breaking the laws of each, he has committed two distinct "offences." United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 382 , 43 S.Ct. 141, 142 , 67 L.Ed. 314 (1922). | 1 | 3 |
Clemons v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Okay?” (R. 2.) After the parties explained to the trial court the sequence of events that had occurred, and after the prosecutor discussed the difference in the federal charges and the attempted-murder charges filed in State court, the trial court stated, “Same offense, just different wording.” (R. 12.) The prosecutor argued that the dual-sovereignty doctrine permitted prosecution in both federal court and state court, and cited Clemons v. State, 720 So.2d 961 (Ala.Crim. 2005See also Clemons v. State, 720 So.2d 961 , 966-68 (Ala.Crim.App. 1996), for a discussion of the dual sovereignty doctrine. 3 Instead, Tinker contends that "trafficking marijuana was not conclusively shown by the State" because, he says, "[t]here has been no marijuana recovered or tested" and "[t]he State depends on the recitation of facts in [Tinker's] federal court plea." (Tinker's brief at pp. 21-22.) Other than his argument before the trial court that State's Exhibit 30 (a certified copy of his federal conviction) was inadmissible because, he said, it was inadmissible character evidence pur | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Heath v. Alabama
green
2 sentences2010The United States Supreme Court, in Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 , 106 S.Ct. 433 , 88 L.Ed.2d 387 (1985), considered the applicability of the dual-sovereignty doctrine to successive capital-murder prosecutions by two states. 2010The United States Supreme Court, in Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 , 106 S.Ct. 433 , 88 L.Ed.2d 387 (1985), considered the applicability of the dual-sovereignty doctrine to successive capital-murder prosecutions by two states. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Moore v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2000As the Court explained in Moore v. Illinois, 14 How. 13, 19 , 14 L.Ed. 306 (1852), "[a]n offence, in its legal signification, means the transgression of a law." Consequently, when the same act transgresses the laws of two sovereigns, "it cannot be truly averred that the offender has been twice punished for the same offence; but only that by one act he has committed two offences, for each of which he is justly punishable." Id., at 20 . "`In applying the dual sovereignty doctrine, then, the crucial determination is whether the two [entities] that seek successively to prosecute a defendant for th 2000As the Court explained in Moore v. Illinois, 14 How. 13, 19 , 14 L.Ed. 306 (1852), "[a]n offence, in its legal signification, means the transgression of a law." Consequently, when the same act transgresses the laws of two sovereigns, "it cannot be truly averred that the offender has been twice punished for the same offence; but only that by one act he has committed two offences, for each of which he is justly punishable." Id., at 20 . "`In applying the dual sovereignty doctrine, then, the crucial determination is whether the two [entities] that seek successively to prosecute a defendant for th | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Petty
green
1 sentence1996Section 161.45 is representative of the type of legislation instituted by those jurisdictions precluding continuing prosecution, as permitted under the doctrine of dual sovereignty." 548 N.W.2d at 825 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Hare v. State
neutral
1 sentence1983Criminal Law, Section 296 (c) (1961)." In the absence of any statutory exception to the dual sovereignty doctrine, see Barnett , supra, we adhere to the principle stated in Hare , supra, and find no error in the denial of the defendant's pleas of former jeopardy. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.