Court Opinion

ID: 9427249
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:20:12.446945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:05.561622
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Rehnquist,
concurring in the judgment.
For the reasons stated by Mr. Justice Powell in his dissenting opinion in Crist v. Bretz, post, p. 40, I do not agree with the Court’s premise, ante, at 24, that “the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy is fully applicable to state criminal proceedings.” Even if I did agree with that view, I would want to emphasize more than the Court does in its opinion the varying practices with respect to motions for new trial and other challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence both at the trial level and on appeal in the 50 different States in the Union. Thus, to the extent that Florida practice in this regard differs from practice in the federal system, the impact of the Double Jeopardy Clause may likewise differ with respect to a particular proceeding. I therefore concur only in the Court’s judgment.