When the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an Alabama man’s double jeopardy defense in 2019, it did so largely based on the “feeble” and “shaky” historical evidence he had offered in support of his argument. 

Justice Samuel Alito Jr.’s opinion for the 7-2 majority in Gamble v. United States included a lengthy discussion of what centuries-old English common law says, or doesn’t say, about the rights of 21st century criminal defendants.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]