| http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#value | - The point, spelled out in Marshall, is this: In a case such as Chapman, where the contempt proceeding need not resort to the modes of trial required by constitutional limitations . . . for substantive offenses under the criminal law, 243 U.S., at 543, 37 S.Ct., at 454, so too will it escape the prohibitions of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
|
