Baxstrom v. Herold
![]() | This article's factual accuracy is disputed. (February 2021) |
Baxstrom v. Herold | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued December 9, 1965 Decided February 23, 1966 | |
Full case name | Baxstrom v. Herold, State Hospital Director |
Citations | 383 U.S. 107 (more) 86 S. Ct. 760; 15 L. Ed. 2d 620; 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2214 |
Holding | |
Civil commitment following a prison term does not constitute an unconstitutional double jeopardy. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Warren, joined by Douglas, Clark, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, White, Fortas |
Concurrence | Black (in judgment) |
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/38px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png)
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. 107 (1966), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that civil commitment following a prison term does not run afoul of double jeopardy principles.[1]
References
[edit]- ^ Bonnie, R.J. et al. Criminal Law, Second Edition. Foundation Press, NY: 2004, p. 664
External links
[edit]