Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
MARAKAR v. UNITED STATES, 1962 — 370 U.S. 723 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
MARAKAR v. UNITED STATES
370 U.S. 7238 L. Ed. 2d 803·Supreme Court of the United States·1962
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
MARAKAR v. UNITED STATES.
No. 1191,
Misc.
Decided June 25, 1962.
Joseph F. Walsh for petitioner in No. 1191, Mise.
Harry T. Carter for petitioner in No. 1234, Mise.
Solicitor General Cox for the United States.
Together with No. 1234, Misc., Ali v. United States, also on petition for writ of certiorari to the same Court.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. On motion of the Solicitor General and upon an examination of the entire record, the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted, the judgments are vacated, and the causes are remanded to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey with directions to dismiss the indictments.
Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, and Mr. Justice Brennan join the Court’s disposition because they believe that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment was an insurmountable barrier to the prosecution of these petitioners under the separate indictments returned on April 26,1961, charging each petitioner with a substantive offense of illegally bringing opium into this country. See Abbate v. United States, 359 U. S. 187, 196 (separate opinion); cf. Petite v. United States, 361 U. S. 529, 533 (dissenting opinion).
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.