Summary

Portrait of Warren E. Burger Warren E. Burger Waller v. Florida — Opinion of the Court

This double jeopardy argument has long been settled contrary to the claims of the petitioner. We see no reason to recede from our established precedent on the subject. Long ago it was decided that an act committed within municipal limits may be punished by city ordinance even though the same act is also proscribed as a crime by a state statute. An offender may be tried for the municipal offense in the city court and for the crime in the proper state court. Conviction or acquittal in either does not bar prosecution in the other.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Warren E. Burger Warren E. Burger Waller v. Florida — Opinion of the Court

When Philippine courts upheld a conviction against a double jeopardy challenge, this Court reversed, resting upon the single-sovereign rationale and distinguishing cases like Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 410, 12 L.Ed. 213 (1847) , which sanctioned successive prosecutions by State and Federal Governments for the same acts:
'An offense against the United States can only be punished under its authority and in the tribunals created by its laws; whereas, an offense against a state can be punished only by its authority and in its tribunals.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature