South Dakota
How Bartkus v. Illinois applies in South Dakota: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Criminal Procedure.
In South Dakota, the principles from Bartkus v. Illinois influence the treatment of double jeopardy, particularly in the context of successive prosecutions by state and federal jurisdictions. The state recognizes that under certain contexts, prosecutions may occur without violating the protections afforded by the Fifth Amendment.
In South Dakota, the state rule follows the principle established in Bartkus that separate sovereigns, such as state and federal governments, can prosecute for the same conduct without violating double jeopardy principles.
The South Dakota Supreme Court held that a prosecution by a different sovereign entity does not invoke double jeopardy protections, aligning with the principle from Bartkus.
The court reinforced that separate sovereigns can pursue independent charges that arise from the same actions of the defendant.
In this case, the court analyzed jurisdictional differences to affirm that convictions under state law after federal prosecution do not contravene the double jeopardy clause.
South Dakota's approach to the double jeopardy principle follows the precedent established in Bartkus, recognizing the independence of state and federal jurisdictions. This is consistent with federal standards under the U.S. Supreme Court, which also allows for successive prosecutions by separate sovereigns.
Understanding the implications of Bartkus v. Illinois is essential for the South Dakota bar exam, particularly in sections covering criminal procedure and constitutional law.