Idaho
How Bartkus v. Illinois applies in Idaho: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Criminal Procedure.
Idaho law adheres to the dual sovereignty doctrine, similar to the federal standard established in Bartkus v. Illinois. This means that a defendant may be prosecuted by both state and federal law for the same conduct without violating double jeopardy protections.
Under Idaho Code § 19-301, a defendant can be prosecuted by the state and a separate sovereign entity without infringing on double jeopardy rights.
The Idaho Supreme Court reaffirmed that double jeopardy does not prohibit successive prosecutions by different sovereigns.
The court held that the double jeopardy clause allows separate prosecutions where one proceeding is based on state law and the other on federal law.
In this case, the court clarified that actions taken by federal authorities do not bar state prosecution.
Idaho follows the same principles laid out in Bartkus v. Illinois regarding dual sovereignty, allowing the state to prosecute for offenses that may also invoke federal jurisdiction. This coherence indicates that Idaho's approach is consistent with federal jurisprudence on the matter.
The principles from Bartkus v. Illinois are relevant for the Idaho bar exam, particularly in understanding double jeopardy and the implications of separate sovereign prosecutions.