State v. Fish

There is no double jeopardy involved in this., case. The defendant’s brief states, on page 35: “It is true the defendant in this case was not placed in jeopardy and there is no problem of double jeopardy involved.” The defendant does contend, however, his discharge under sec. 955.01, Stats. 1959, barred the subsequent prosecution for the thefts of $8,810.32 during the period he acted as justice of the peace, as charged in the first information. The trial court held the discharge went no further than to bar subsequent prosecution for the acts proven on the first preliminary and therefore only…