Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/404/55/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 16:01:06+00:00

Document:
The principle announced in Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436, which bars a second criminal trial where the defendant has been acquitted in a previous trial involving the same ultimate factual issue, applies irrespective of whether the jury in the first trial considered all relevant evidence, and irrespective of the State's good faith in bringing successive prosecutions.
Certiorari granted; 78 Wash.2d 894, 480 P.2d 484, reversed.
On June 10, 1969, a bomb sent through the mail exploded in the residence of Ralph Burdick in Clark County, Washington. The explosion killed Burdick and the petitioner's infant son, Mark Allen Harris, and seriously injured the petitioner's estranged wife, Laila Violet Harris. The petitioner was tried in a state court for the murder of Ralph Burdick and was acquitted by a jury. He was immediately rearrested on informations charging the murder of Mark Allen Harris and the assault upon Laila Violet Harris. To these informations, the petitioner entered pleas of former jeopardy and collateral estoppel, and moved to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion and struck the defenses.
irrespective of the good faith of the State in bringing successive prosecutions.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL would grant the petition and reverse the judgment both for the reasons stated in the per curiam opinion and for the reasons stated in MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN's concurring opinion in Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436, 397 U. S. 448.
The Court's summary act without hearing argument in this case is wrong in two respects: first, it is another instance of importing into the administration of criminal justice the civil doctrine of collateral estoppel, to which I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissent in Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436, 397 U. S. 460 (1970); second, even assuming the collateral estoppel approach has validity, the evidence in this case in the second trial is not the "same evidence" on which the first case was submitted, so that this is not a case for application of that unsound doctrine.
criminal proceeding. I could have understood a flat overruling of Hoag v. New Jersey, 356 U. S. 464 (1958), and of Ciucci v. Illinois, 356 U. S. 571 (1958), despite the interim appearance of Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784 (1969). But overruling those two cases was a step the Court, for reasons that escape me, refused to take or felt it could not take.
Neither am I persuaded by the "single frolic" or "one criminal episode" or "same transaction" theory espoused by the Justices in concurrence in Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. at 397 U. S. 448-460. That approach would place multiple but separate-shot murders under the protective umbrella of double jeopardy. I cannot subscribe to reasoning that would necessarily produce a result of that kind.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.