Court Opinion

ID: 9428775
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:24:44.987956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:15.231205
License: Public Domain

Justice Brennan,
with whom Justice Marshall joins, concurring in the judgment.
I concur in the judgment and join in the opinion of Justice Stevens. However, it should be noted that nothing in the holding of the Court today prevents the state courts, on remand, from concluding that respondent’s retrial would violate the provision of the Oregon Constitution that prohibits double jeopardy, Ore. Const., Art. I, § 12, as that provision *681has been interpreted by the state courts, State v. Rathbun, 287 Ore. 421, 600 P. 2d 392 (1979). See South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U. S. 364, 396 (1976) (Marshall, J., dissenting), on remand, State v. Opperman, 247 N. W. 2d 673 (S. D. 1976) (original State Supreme Court judgment adhered to as a matter of state constitutional law); Oregon v. Hass, 420 U. S. 714, 726 (1975) (Marshall, J., dissenting).