Commonwealth v. Johnson

In a capital homicide case, the prosecutor and testifying offers made a series of unintentional, but very serious errors. On collateral attack of the convictions, the defendant won a new trial, but sought to preclude another trial under the Pennsylvania Constitutions Double Jeopardy clause found in Article 1, Section 10. The Supreme Court held that that clause, “prosecutorial overreaching sufficient to invoke double jeopardy protections includes misconduct which not only deprives the defendant of his right to a fair trial, but is undertaken recklessly, that is, with a conscious disregard for a substantial risk that such will be the result.” Two justices dissented. 

Com-v.-Johnson

Com-v.-Johnson-concur

Com-v.-Johnson-dissent