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.
Susi et al. v. Flowers, Judge, 1975 โ 423 U.S. 1006 ยท caselaw ยท US
Constitutional Law ยท MBE-tested
Susi et al. v. Flowers, Judge
423 U.S. 1006ยทSupreme Court of the United Statesยท1975
with whom Mr. Justice Marshall concurs,
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
No. 74-495.
Susi et al. v. Flowers, Judge.
[MAJORITY]
Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.
[DISSENT โ Mr. Justice Brennan,]
Mr. Justice Brennan,
with whom Mr. Justice Marshall concurs,
dissenting.
Petitioners were arrested on August 31, 1971, and charged with permitting a room to be used for gambling, a misdemeanor, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. ยง 2915.01 (Supp. 1972), and with possession of numbers game tickets, a felony, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. ยง 2915.111 (Supp. 1972). On March 6, 1972, petitioners were tried and convicted of the first charge in the Municipal Court of Franklin County, Ohio. They were subsequently indicted on the felony charge in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, and they filed a motion to dismiss the indictment as violative of double jeopardy based on the previous conviction for a misdemeanor arising out of the same criminal episode. The trial court overruled the motion to dismiss, and the Court of Appeals dismissed petitionersโ complaint seeking habeas corpus. In re Susi, 38 Ohio App. 2d 73, 313 N. E. 2d 422 (1973). The same court then dismissed petitionersโ motion for a writ of prohibition, and this dismissal was affirmed on appeal by the Ohio Supreme Court. State ex rel. Susi v. Flowers, 43 Ohio St. 2d 11, 330 N. E. 2d 662 (1975).
Thus, the State seeks to try petitioners on two charges in separate trials, although the charges clearly arose out of the same criminal transaction or episode. In that circumstance, we should grant the petition for certiorari and reverse the denial of petitionersโ complaint seeking a writ of prohibition. I adhere to the view that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784 (1969), requires the joinder at one trial, except in extremely limited circumstances not present here, of โall the charges against a defendant that grow out of a single criminal act, occurrence, episode, or transaction.โ Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436, 453-454 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring). See Vardas v. Texas, ante, p. 904 (Brennan, J., dissenting); Stewart v. Iowa, ante, p. 902 (Brennan, J., dissenting); Waugh v. Gray, 422 U. S. 1027 (1975) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Wells v. Missouri, 419 U. S. 1075 (1974) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Moton v. Swenson, 417 U. S. 957 (1974) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Tijerina v. New Mexico, 417 U. S. 956 (1974) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Ciuzio v. United States, 416 U. S. 995 (1974) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Harris v. Washington, 404 U. S. 55, 57 (1971) (concurring statement of Douglas, Brennan, and Marshall, JJ.,); Waller v. Florida, 397 U. S. 387, 395 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring). See also People v. White, 390 Mich. 245, 212 N. W. 2d 222 (1973); State v. Brown, 262 Ore. 442, 497 P. 2d 1191 (1972); Commonwealth v. Campana, 452 Pa. 233, 304 A. 2d 432 (1973), vacated and remanded, 414 U. S. 808 (1973), adhered to on remand, 455 Pa. 622, 314 A. 2d 854 (1974); State v. Gregory, 66 N. J. 510, 333 A. 2d 257 (1975).