Arizona
How Bartkus v. Illinois applies in Arizona: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Criminal Procedure.
Arizona follows the principle established in Bartkus v. Illinois regarding double jeopardy and the application of state and federal laws. The state recognizes that a valid acquittal in one jurisdiction may not preclude prosecution in another jurisdiction for the same act, provided there is no violation of federal protections.
In Arizona, the rule against double jeopardy is governed by A.R.S. § 13-107, which ensures that a person cannot be tried for the same offense after an acquittal or conviction in a single jurisdiction, consistent with Bartkus’s principles.
The court held that double jeopardy protections apply to charges brought in separate sovereigns, reinforcing the Bartkus principle that states can pursue separate prosecutions.
The Arizona Supreme Court clarified that acquittals in a state-level trial do not preclude subsequent prosecutions in federal court for the same conduct.
This case reaffirmed that the state has a right to retry cases where federal courts have declined to prosecute, illustrating the independent sovereignty recognized in Bartkus.
Arizona’s approach to the principles laid out in Bartkus is largely consistent with federal law, which also allows separate prosecutions for the same act under state and federal jurisdiction. Federal protections under the Double Jeopardy Clause apply to the states through the 14th Amendment, but Arizona maintains a degree of independence in its interpretation.
Understanding the application of double jeopardy principles in Arizona is crucial for the Arizona bar exam, especially in addressing issues related to separate sovereign prosecutions.