second prosecution and imposition of punishment by Pennsylvania for same offense as to which federal prosecution and punishment occurred held precluded unless interests of two jurisdictions differed substantially, so that initial prosecution failed to protect Pennsylvania interests
How later courts described this case
- second prosecution and imposition of punishment by Pennsylvania for same offense as to which federal prosecution and punishment occurred held precluded unless interests of two jurisdictions differed substantially, so that initial prosecution failed to protect Pennsylvania interests
- as matter of state constitutional law, separate prosecution by courts of Pennsylvania following prior conviction for same act in federal courts will not be permitted unless it first appears that the interests of the state and federal governments are substantially different
- observing that the federal double jeopardy clause protects against “multiple punishment for the same offense at one trial”
- second prosecution and punishment for same offense not permitted in Pennsylvania unless interests of Commonwealth and jurisdiction that initially prosecuted and punished defendant are substantially different
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*175 Dissenting Opinion by
Mb. Chief Justice Bell:
This case is undoubtedly governed and ruled by Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 , and Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 , which hold that a person can be indicted and tried for the same crime in both Federal and State Courts. While I think they should be reversed or modified, I cannot go as far as the Majority do, and I believe the test which the Majority adopt (prospectively, and apply retroactively) is so indefinite and so subject to Judicial caprice that I must dissent for each of these reasons.