Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. Wilson

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 28, 1997No. Docket Nos. 101870, 102007, Calendar Nos. 3, 4Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBoyle, J.

While I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the subsequent prosecution of defendant Amir Wilson is precluded by double jeopardy, I dissent from the majority holding that the prosecution in Oakland County of Aaron Banks was barred by the double jeopardy provision of the United States and Michigan Constitutions. Ante at 423. The prosecution of defendant Banks was not barred by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts or by the Michigan Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause, governed by this Court’s…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  2. Ashe v. SwensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Brown v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. United States v. DixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  5. Grady v. CorbinSupreme Court of the United States · 1990

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API