Court Opinion

ID: 9503836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:49:12.047138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:44.538809
License: Public Domain

Young, J.
(concurring). I join in Justice Corrigan’s concurrence in the denial of the appellant’s motion for rehearing, as it is unnecessary for this Court to provide further explication on what is a bedrock double jeopardy principle. See United States v Ball, 163 US 662 (1896); Stroud v United States, 251 US 15 (1919); Louisiana ex rel Francis v Resweber, 329 US 459 *1205(1947); Green v United States, 355 US 184 (1957); United States v Tateo, 377 US 463 (1964); United States v Ewell, 383 US 116 (1966); United States v Scott, 437 US 82 (1978); Tibbs v Florida, 457 US 31 (1982); Justices of Boston Muni Court v Lydon, 466 US 294 (1984); Montana v Hall, 481 US 400 (1987); Lockhart v Nelson, 488 US 33 (1988); Monge v California, 524 US 721 (1998).