Denezpi v. United States
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Denezpi v. United States and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Denezpi v. United States.
The Supreme Court decided that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prevent successive prosecutions for distinct offenses arising from a single act, even by the same sovereign. Merle Denezpi was prosecuted by a CFR court and later by a federal court for different offenses stemming from the same incident. The Court emphasized that the Clause focuses on whether prosecutions are for the same 'offence,' not the identity of the prosecuting authority.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Denezpi v. United States.
The Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar successive prosecutions of distinct offenses arising from a single act, even if a single sovereign prosecutes them.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Denezpi v. United States. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Double Jeopardy is relevant to Denezpi v. United States
The case directly addresses whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars successive prosecutions for distinct offenses arising from a single act.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar successive prosecutions of distinct offenses arising from a single act, even if a single sovereign prosecutes them.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Denezpi v. United States that support the summary and concepts above.
The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar successive prosecutions of distinct offenses arising from a single act.
The Clause does not prohibit twice placing a person in jeopardy 'for the same conduct or actions.'
The Court has seen no evidence that 'offence' was originally understood to encompass both the violation of the law and the identity of the prosecutor.
