Bartkus v. Illinois
359 U.S. 121 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Successive prosecutions by federal and state governments for the same criminal acts do not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the state and federal governments are separate sovereigns, and a single act may constitute an offense against the laws of both.
Facts:
- Alfonse Bartkus was accused of robbing the General Savings and Loan Association of Cicero, Illinois, a federally insured institution.
- The facts presented in the Illinois state indictment were substantially identical to those in a prior federal indictment for the same robbery.
- An agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), who investigated the case for the federal government, turned over all evidence he had gathered to the Illinois prosecuting officials.
- Some of the evidence provided by the FBI agent to the state was gathered after Bartkus's acquittal in the federal trial.
- Federal officials cooperated with state authorities in the subsequent prosecution.
- The federal sentencing for accomplices who testified against Bartkus in both trials was delayed until after they testified in the state trial.
Procedural Posture:
- Alfonse Bartkus was tried for robbery of a federally insured savings and loan association in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- A jury acquitted Bartkus in the federal trial.
- Following the federal acquittal, an Illinois grand jury indicted Bartkus for robbery based on the same acts.
- In the Criminal Court of Cook County, a state trial court, Bartkus's plea of autrefois acquit (former acquittal) was rejected.
- Bartkus was convicted in the state trial court and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Bartkus appealed his conviction to the Illinois Supreme Court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a subsequent state prosecution for criminal acts, for which a defendant has already been tried and acquitted in federal court, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Frankfurter
No, a subsequent state prosecution after a federal acquittal for the same acts does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This conclusion is based on the principle of dual sovereignty, which recognizes that a single act can transgress the laws of two separate sovereigns—the federal government and a state government. The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause does not incorporate the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause against the states. An extensive and unbroken line of judicial precedent, dating back over a century, has consistently held that successive prosecutions by separate sovereigns are constitutionally permissible. To rule otherwise would improperly subordinate the states' sovereign power to enforce their own criminal laws to a prior federal prosecution, which might involve a lesser offense. The Court found that while federal and state officials cooperated, the Illinois prosecution was not a mere 'sham' or 'tool' of the federal government designed to circumvent the Fifth Amendment.
Dissenting - Justice Black
Yes, the state conviction after a federal acquittal violates the principles of justice embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment. The prohibition against double jeopardy is a fundamental principle deeply 'rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people.' From the defendant's perspective, being tried twice for the same conduct is equally oppressive regardless of whether the prosecutions are brought by one or two sovereigns. The 'dual sovereignty' doctrine is a misuse of federalism that erodes ancient safeguards for individual liberty. The danger to an innocent person is just as great when the combined power of the state and federal governments is brought to bear in two separate trials.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes, this specific state conviction must be overturned. While dual sovereignty might be permissible in theory, this state prosecution was, in reality, a second federal prosecution, making it a 'sham and a cover' that violates the Fifth Amendment. The record demonstrates that federal officials, displeased with the acquittal, instigated, guided, and prepared the state's case. Federal agents solicited the state indictment, unearthed new evidence to discredit the defendant's alibi, and arranged for key witnesses. This level of federal participation infected the state proceeding to such a degree that it became a transparent attempt by federal authorities to get a second try at convicting Bartkus, thereby violating his constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes the 'dual sovereignty' doctrine as an exception to the principle against double jeopardy. It allows separate state and federal prosecutions for the same underlying criminal act. The ruling underscores the Court's view at the time that the Bill of Rights, specifically the Double Jeopardy Clause, was not fully incorporated against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. This precedent creates a significant vulnerability for criminal defendants, who can face repeated trials for the same conduct if it violates laws of both sovereigns. The dissent's 'sham prosecution' argument sets a high but important standard, suggesting that if a subsequent prosecution is merely a tool of the first sovereign, it may be unconstitutional, a question that remains relevant in cases involving extensive federal-state cooperation.
Unlock the full brief for Bartkus v. Illinois