 | This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. (February 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| Baxstrom v. Herold | |
|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | |
| 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) |
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.
References
- Bonnie, R.J. et al. Criminal Law, Second Edition. Foundation Press, NY: 2004, p. 664
External links
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |