Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Commonwealth v. Warfield

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 14, 1967No. Appeals, 133 and 135Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Concurring ano Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Roberts:

Implicit in the Court’s approach to the problems presented by the instant case are the following conclusions: 1) the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States has not been “selectively incorporated”1 into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thus *563is not binding upon this Court;2 2) tbe due process clause of tbe Fourteenth Amendment standing alone does not prevent Pennsylvania from limiting the application of its double jeopardy provision, Art. I, §10 of the Pennsylvania…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Escobedo v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Pointer v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  4. Ker v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  5. Green v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957

24 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