Bartkus v. Illinois

3 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. HOMICK (STEVEN)

    Respondent’s Brief

    Filed September 15, 2009

    If the federal prosecution of appellant prevented the state capital prosecution, "the result would be a shocking and untoward deprivation of the historic right and obligation of the States to maintain peace and order within their confines." (Bartkus v. Illinois, supra, 359 U.S. at p. 137.) For all of the foregoing reasons, section 656 does not bar the murder convictions in this case.

  2. PEOPLE v. HOMICK (STEVEN)

    Appellant’s Reply Brief

    Filed July 23, 2010

    Respondent ends with an even more puzzling andirrelevant claim. Respondentcites language in Bartkus v. Illinois (1959) 359 U.S. 121, 137 for the claim that it would shock the conscience if a federal conviction for a crime that carried a sentence of two years served as a bar to a state prosecu- tion that carried a potential sentence of death. (RB 328-329.) Respondent concedes that is not the present situation.

  3. PEOPLE v. DAVEGGIO & MICHAUD

    Respondent’s Brief

    Filed June 11, 2012

    (MOB 103-104.) In Freeman, this Court recommendedthat reasonable doubt be defined as follows: ° Of course, Fifth Amendmentdueprocessrestricts the powers ofthe federal government and doesnot apply to state actions. Only Fourteenth Amendmentdue processapplies to state actions. (See Bartkus v. Illinois (1959) 359 U.S. 121, 124; see also Pruett v. Dumas (N.D. Miss. 1996) 914 F.Supp. 133, 136.) 85 “Tt is not a mere possible doubt; because everything relating to humanaffairs is open to somepossible or imaginary doubt.