Waller v. Florida

Background

A man removed a canvas mural from a wall inside St. Petersburg City Hall and carried it through the streets. He was first convicted in municipal court for violating local ordinances and later convicted of grand larceny in state court for the same conduct. The Supreme Court previously reviewed the case, vacated a state judgment, and remanded because the state had treated the city and the State as separate sovereigns. On remand the state courts rejected the defendant’s double jeopardy claim on a different ground, and the Florida courts affirmed the state conviction.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars separate prosecutions when municipal ordinance violations and state theft charges arise from the same transaction. In this order the Supreme Court declined to take up further review and vacated its earlier stay. The Court therefore did not decide the broader legal question. Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Douglas and Marshall, dissented and said the Double Jeopardy Clause generally requires joining all charges from a single criminal episode and that the case should be reviewed and remanded.

Real world impact

Because the Court denied review and lifted its temporary stay, the Florida courts’ decisions remain in place for now and state enforcement or sentencing may proceed. The ruling leaves unresolved whether separate municipal and state prosecutions from one transaction violate double jeopardy. The dissent highlights an ongoing disagreement among the Justices about that rule.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan’s dissent, joined by Justices Douglas and Marshall, would have granted review and remanded, urging that related charges arising from one transaction be tried together under the Double Jeopardy Clause.