The Three Faces of Double Jeopardy: Reflections on Government Appeals of Criminal Sentences
Westen, Peter K.
Citation analytics
How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this journal article
Most recently cited by10
- 2009State v. Wright Wash.
- 1993People v. Levin Ill.
- 1989Ruiz v. State Ark.
- 1985State v. Martin Wis.
- 1985State v. Kramsvogel Wis.
- 1983State v. Vernell Teynac Hennings Wash.
- 1983State v. Vaughn Ohio Ct. App.
- 1982Gilkerson v. Lilly W. Va.
- 1982Aldoupolis v. Commonwealth Mass.
- 1982State v. Potter Wash. Ct. App.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Abstract
Every now and then a case ·comes along that tests the fundamental premises of a body of law. United States v. DiFrancesco presents such a test to the law of double jeopardy, raising the question whether the government may unilaterally appeal a defendant's criminal sentence for the purpose of increasing the sentence. The question cannot be answered by facile reference to the text of the fifth amendment, because the terms of the double jeopardy clause are not self-defining. Nor can it be settled by reference to history, because the issue has not arisen with any frequency until now.