Cousins v. Maryland

Background

A defendant was accused of assaults arising from an incident at a department store. The first charging paper accused him of assaulting two store detectives who followed him into an adjacent mall area. A later indictment charged assault against only one of those detectives. The defendant was tried first in a bench trial on the charge involving the detective not named in the later indictment and was acquitted. He then asked the state court to dismiss the later indictment, arguing that the acquittal should prevent a second prosecution for the related charge.

Reasoning

The core question raised in the papers before the Court was whether the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents separate prosecutions for charges that arise from the same incident. The state trial court denied the dismissal motion, and the Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed that denial. The Supreme Court, by the entry shown here, declined to review that state-court ruling. In a written dissent, one Justice argued that the Constitution requires prosecuting all charges from a single episode together and that the later indictment should have been dismissed; that Justice would have granted review and reversed.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court declined to take the case, the Maryland courts’ decision stands. Practically, a person acquitted at an initial trial for one related assault charge may still face a separate state indictment for another assault tied to the same episode. The dissenting Justice warned this result conflicts with a broader view of double‑jeopardy protection and urged reversal, but the Court did not adopt that view.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, dissented, stating he would grant review and reverse, and he reiterated his long-standing view that related charges arising from one transaction must be prosecuted together except in very limited circumstances.