THOMPSON
v.
OKLAHOMA

U.S. | 1977-01-10
No. 76-5283
with whom Mr. Justice Marshall joins,
429 U.S. 1053 Supreme Court of the United States (1977) Positive Treatment
Cited by 11 cases
Dissent
Mr. Justice Brennan,

Mr. Justice Brennan,

with whom Mr. Justice Marshall joins,

dissenting.

Petitioner was charged by information in an Oklahoma state court with murder. After a jury trial, he was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree. Thereafter, petitioner was charged in separate informations with two additional offenses arising out of the same episode: burglary in the first degree and carrying firearms. He pleaded guilty to these offenses and was sentenced to additional concurrent terms of 10 years’ imprisonment for each offense. Petitioner then made an application for post-conviction relief in the State District Court attacking the latter two convictions on grounds of collateral estoppel and double jeopardy. The District Court denied the application, and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

I would grant the petition for certiorari and reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals affirming the burglary and firearm convictions. I adhere to the view that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, requires the prosecution in one proceeding, except in extremely limited circumstances not present here, of “all the charges against a defendant that grow out of a single criminal act, occurrence, episode, or transaction.” Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436, 453-454 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring).

See Cousins v. Maryland, ante, p. 1027 (Brennan, J., dissenting) ; Dempsey v. United States, 423 U. S. 1079 (1976) (Brennan, J., dissenting) ; Susi v. Flowers, 423 U. S. 1006 (1975) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Vardas v. Texas, 423 U. S. 904 (1975) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Stewart v. Iowa, 423 U. S. 902 (1975) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Waugh v. Gray, 422 U. S. 1027 (1975) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Wells v. Missouri, 419 U. S. 1075 (1974) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Moton v. Swenson, 417 U. S. 957 (1974) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Tijerina v. New Mexico, 417 U. S. 956 (1974) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Ciuzio v. United States, 416 U. S. 995 (1974) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Harris v. Washington, 404 U. S. 55, 57 (1971) (concurring statement); Waller v. Florida, 397 U. S. 387, 395 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring).

See also People v. White, 390 Mich. 245, 212 N. W. 2d 222 (1973); State v. Brown, 262 Ore. 442, 497 P. 2d 1191 (1972); Commonwealth v. Campana, 452 Pa. 233, 304 A. 2d 432, vacated and remanded, 414 U. S. 808 (1973), adhered to on remand, 455 Pa. 622, 314 A. 2d 854 (1974); State v. Gregory, 66 N. J. 510, 333 A. 2d 257 (1975).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

  • Nollie Lee Martin v. Louie L. Wainwright, 770 F.2d 918 (11th Cir. 1985)
    …89, 92 S.Ct. 619, 626-27, 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972), on collateral review, the burden of proving involuntariness rests with the habeas corpus applicant. See Jurek, 623 F. 2d at 937; Bruce v. Estelle, 536 F. 2d 1051, 1058-59 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1053, 97 S.Ct. 767, 50 L.Ed.2d 770 (1977). We therefore look to the “totality of the circumstances” surrounding the July 4 interrogation, to determine whether the record supports Martin’s contention that the confession was involuntary. Martin identifies…
  • Staffin v. Greenberg, 672 F.2d 1196 (3d Cir. 1982)
    …ses under Rule 10b-5 when the corporate insider desires to trade, and has been described as an alternative duty rather than an absolute one; to disclose or abstain from trading. Fridrich v. Bradford, 542 F. 2d 307, 318 (6th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1053, 97 S.Ct. 767, 50 L.Ed.2d 769 (1977). State Teachers Retirement Board v. Fluor Corp., 500 F.Supp. 278, 291-92 (S.D.N.Y.1980), aff’d in relevant part, 654 F. 2d 843 (2d Cir. 1981). A few cases have imposed certain duties on a corporation under Rule…
  • Wheat v. Thigpen, 793 F.2d 621 (5th Cir. 1986)
    …strict court holds a nunc pro tunc hearing as to the petitioner’s competency. The petitioner bears the burden of proving his incompetency by a preponderance of the evidence. Bruce v. Estelle, 536 F. 2d 1051, 1059 (5th Cir.) (Bruce II), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1053, 97 S.Ct. 767, 50 L.Ed.2d 770 (1970). In the instant case, after conducting a hearing, the district court ruled that a Pate violation occurred. The State does not challenge the ruling. The district court then proceeded to determine whether it could…

Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (17 total)

View all 17 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw