BARTKUS

v.

ILLINOIS

Citator

Cited By

• Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (U.S. 1959)
  …0 N. E. 2d 187. We granted certiorari because the petition raised a substantial question concerning the application of the Fourteenth Amendment. 352 U.' S. 907, 958. On January 6, 1958, the judgment below was affirmed by "’.an equally divided Court. 355 U. S. 281. On May 26, 1958, the Court granted a petition for rehearing, vacated the judgment entered January 6, 1958, and restored the case to the calendar for reargument. 356 U. S. 969. The state and federal prosecutions were separately con-' ducted. It is…
• United States v. Hoyland, 264 F.2d 346 (7th Cir. 1959)
  …aware of the authorities in support of the proposition that the Double Jeopardy clause does not preclude independent trials by different sovereign-ties.” Even so, defendant argues: “However, there is a case [Bartkus v. People of State of Illinois, 355 U.S. 281, 78 S.Ct. 336, 2 L.Ed.2d 270; Id., 356 U.S. 969, 78 S.Ct. 1004, 2 L.Ed.2d 1075] (via certiorari) presently before the United States Supreme Court in which the question is raised as to whether a defendant may lawfully be subsequently prosecuted and c…
• Polisnik v. United States, 259 F.2d 951 (D.C. Cir. 1958)
  …280, 2 L.Ed.2d 1405, and Hoag v. State of New Jersey, 356 U.S. 464, 78 S.Ct. 829, 2 L.Ed.2d 913. Another case on the same point is now pending there. Ladner v. United States, 5 Cir., 230 F. 2d 726, affirmed by an equally divided Court, 855 U.S. 282, 78 S.Ct. 336, 2 L.Ed.2d 270, rehearing granted 356 U.S. 969, 78 S.Ct. 1004, 2 L.Ed.2d 1075. Since we grant a new trial for the reason set forth in the opinion, there would seem to be no occasion to delay the disposition of the ease by this court pending the deci…

Authorities Cited

• Bartkus v. Illinois, 352 U.S. 958 (U.S. 1957)