# Waller v. Florida

> Supreme Court of the United States · April 6, 1970 · 397 U.S. 387

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424225

## Case

- **Full name:** Waller v. Florida
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** April 6, 1970
- **Citations:** 397 U.S. 387; 52 Ohio Op. 2d 320; 90 S. Ct. 1184; 25 L. Ed. 2d 435; 1970 U.S. LEXIS 52
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brennan
- **Judges:** Burger, Brennan, Black, Illinois, Abbate
- **Cited by:** 520 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424225

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that city and state in which it was political subdivision could not bring successive prosecutions for same unlawful conduct despite fact that state law treated them as separate sovereigns
- holding that because a municipal and state court are part of one sovereign judicial system, successive prosecutions are not prosecutions by separate sovereigns

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Brennan,
concurring.
I join the holding of the Court that, because the municipal and state courts of a State are part of one *396 sovereign judicial system, successive prosecutions in the municipal and state courts are not prosecutions by separate sovereign entities. Moreover, for the reasons stated in my concurring opinion in Ashe v. Swenson, post, p. 448, I believe that, unless this case fell within one of the exceptions to the “same transaction” rule, see, id., at 453 n. 7, 455 n. 11, the Double Jeopardy Clause barred a second trial since all the charges grew out of the same criminal episode. *
I adhere to the Court’s holding in Ashe v. Swenson, post, at 437 n. 1, that our decision in Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784 (1969), holding the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment applicable to the States, is “fully ‘retroactive.’ ” See also North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711 (1969).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424225. Public record. Not legal advice.