Waller v. Florida
Petitioner
Joseph Waller, Jr.
Respondent
Earl Faircloth, Attorney General of the State of Florida
Petitioner's Claim
That a prosecution in a court of the United States is a bar to a subsequent prosecution in a territorial court, since both are arms of the same sovereign.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Leslie H. Levinson
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
George Georgieff
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger (writing for the Court), William O. Douglas, John Marshall Harlan II, Thurgood Marshall, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
13 November 1969
Decision
The Supreme Court vacated the felony conviction against Waller and remanded the case to the District Court of Appeal of Florida.
Significance
Because the state felony charge was based solely on acts covered in the previous municipal court conviction for the lessor included offenses, the second trial constituted double jeopardy violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
In 1967, Joseph Waller, Jr., along with several other persons, removed a canvas mural from the inside of the city hall of St. Petersburg, Florida. As Waller and the others were carrying the mural across town, they were stopped by the police. A struggle broke out resulting in a damaged mural and the arrest of Waller and his compatriots. Waller was charged with destruction of city property and disorderly breach of the peace. Found guilty of both counts, Wallerwas sentenced to six months in the county jail.
At this point, the state of Florida stepped in and charged Waller with grandlarceny based on the same acts that had already gotten him convicted on the city ordinances. Before the circuit court trial began Waller and his lawyers attempted to stop the trial by appealing to the Supreme Court of Florida, buthis motion was denied without opinion. Waller was then tried and found guiltyin circuit court and sentenced to a term in prison of between six months andfive years, less the six months already served.
Waller then appealed his second conviction to the Florida District Court of Appeals which considered and then rejected his claim of double jeopardy stating:
However, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and on 13 November 1969 arguments were made. On 6 April 1970, Chief Justice Burger issued the unanimous decision of the Court "that the Florida courts were in error to the extent of holding that--`even if a person has been tried in a municipal court for the identical offense for which he is charged in a state court, this wouldnot be a bar to the prosecution of such person in the proper state court.'" Therefore, the Court stated, the second trial of Waller, which resulted in a guilty verdict, was invalid, the judgement vacated and the case remanded to the Florida District Court of Appeals.
The true importance of this ruling rests not in the striking down of the outdated notion of "Dual Sovereignty" which allowed each level of government itssuccessive crack at the defendant. Rather, it is in the rulings extension ofthe Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy, from the Constitution's Bill of Rights, to state cases as well.
Related Cases
Motion to Suppress
A motion is an official request for a court or judge to issue a ruling or order for some act to be done in favor of the party making the request. Hence, amotion to suppress evidence is a request for evidence to be suppressed or not be admitted in a criminal trial. Motions to suppress evidence usually are filed when a defendant believes evidence was obtained illegally in violation of his or her constitutional rights. A written motion must include the specific request as well as the reasons for the request. In addition, a written motion also may include references to other cases that support the request.
After a judge receives a motion to suppress, he or she has two options. First, the judge may grant or deny the motion as a result of the motion's contentsalone. Second, the judge may set up a hearing. A motion hearing permits eachparty to argue in support of its position and allows the judge to ask questions about the facts of the case.
Sources
West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Minneapolis, MN: West Publishing,1998.
Joseph Waller, Jr.
Respondent
Earl Faircloth, Attorney General of the State of Florida
Petitioner's Claim
That a prosecution in a court of the United States is a bar to a subsequent prosecution in a territorial court, since both are arms of the same sovereign.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Leslie H. Levinson
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
George Georgieff
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger (writing for the Court), William O. Douglas, John Marshall Harlan II, Thurgood Marshall, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
13 November 1969
Decision
The Supreme Court vacated the felony conviction against Waller and remanded the case to the District Court of Appeal of Florida.
Significance
Because the state felony charge was based solely on acts covered in the previous municipal court conviction for the lessor included offenses, the second trial constituted double jeopardy violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
In 1967, Joseph Waller, Jr., along with several other persons, removed a canvas mural from the inside of the city hall of St. Petersburg, Florida. As Waller and the others were carrying the mural across town, they were stopped by the police. A struggle broke out resulting in a damaged mural and the arrest of Waller and his compatriots. Waller was charged with destruction of city property and disorderly breach of the peace. Found guilty of both counts, Wallerwas sentenced to six months in the county jail.
At this point, the state of Florida stepped in and charged Waller with grandlarceny based on the same acts that had already gotten him convicted on the city ordinances. Before the circuit court trial began Waller and his lawyers attempted to stop the trial by appealing to the Supreme Court of Florida, buthis motion was denied without opinion. Waller was then tried and found guiltyin circuit court and sentenced to a term in prison of between six months andfive years, less the six months already served.
Waller then appealed his second conviction to the Florida District Court of Appeals which considered and then rejected his claim of double jeopardy stating:
This double Jeopardy argument has long been settled contrary tothe claims of the petitioner. We see no reason to recede from our established precedent on the subject. Long ago it was decided that an act committed within municipal limits may be punished by city ordinance even though the same act is also proscribed as a crime by a state statute. An offender may be triedfor the municipal offense in the city court and for the crime in the properstate court. Conviction or acquittal in either does not bar prosecution in the other.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and on 13 November 1969 arguments were made. On 6 April 1970, Chief Justice Burger issued the unanimous decision of the Court "that the Florida courts were in error to the extent of holding that--`even if a person has been tried in a municipal court for the identical offense for which he is charged in a state court, this wouldnot be a bar to the prosecution of such person in the proper state court.'" Therefore, the Court stated, the second trial of Waller, which resulted in a guilty verdict, was invalid, the judgement vacated and the case remanded to the Florida District Court of Appeals.
The true importance of this ruling rests not in the striking down of the outdated notion of "Dual Sovereignty" which allowed each level of government itssuccessive crack at the defendant. Rather, it is in the rulings extension ofthe Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy, from the Constitution's Bill of Rights, to state cases as well.
Related Cases
- Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).
- Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959).
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).
- Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969).
Motion to Suppress
A motion is an official request for a court or judge to issue a ruling or order for some act to be done in favor of the party making the request. Hence, amotion to suppress evidence is a request for evidence to be suppressed or not be admitted in a criminal trial. Motions to suppress evidence usually are filed when a defendant believes evidence was obtained illegally in violation of his or her constitutional rights. A written motion must include the specific request as well as the reasons for the request. In addition, a written motion also may include references to other cases that support the request.
After a judge receives a motion to suppress, he or she has two options. First, the judge may grant or deny the motion as a result of the motion's contentsalone. Second, the judge may set up a hearing. A motion hearing permits eachparty to argue in support of its position and allows the judge to ask questions about the facts of the case.
Sources
West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Minneapolis, MN: West Publishing,1998.
Further Readings
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
User Comments Add a comment…