Skip to comments.Supreme Court declines to overturn exception to double jeopardy
Posted on 06/17/2019 7:44:43 AM PDT by SMGFan
The Supreme Court left intact a century-old exception to the Fifth Amendments double jeopardy clause that permits a state and the federal government to prosecute a person for the same criminal offense.
The court ruled 7-2 in declining to overturn the separate sovereigns doctrine, with Justice Samuel Alito delivering the opinion of the court. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
The case before the high court involved a challenge to the Supreme Courts separate sovereigns doctrine, an exception to the Fifth Amendments double jeopardy clause, which states no one can be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb. Under the separate sovereigns exception, however, a person can be prosecuted in state and federal courts for the same criminal conduct because the states are separate sovereigns.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Did you mean Gorsuch? Or are you implying RBG has a split personality???
Gorsuch joined her.
First opinion in her undistinguished years on the bench I have ever agreed with Ginsburg
So no plea deals if you can be prosecuted under both State and Federal law. Fifth Amendment wouldn’t apply since if you took a plea deal you wouldn’t have been compelled to testify against yourself and your admission under one sovereign would be used against you by the other.
If OP’s comment that “Ginsburg dissented & Ginsburg joined her” is meant to say, “Ginsburg dissented and Gorsuch joined her,” that’s a bit misleading. Both dissented, but Gorsuch did not join Ginsburg’s dissent and in fact wrote his own dissent (quite a long one too at 25 pages).
She's half dead. So under democrat rules, she gets to vote as a live member of the court and a dead one.
So, kind of a Schrodinger’s Justice?
Sorry, but the story said “ Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil Gorsuch dissented.”
Sorry for the error , you read comments before excerpts?
The excerpt had “Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil Gorsuch dissented.”
So, you can be Tried by the Feds and if that fails you can be Tried by the State and if that fails you can be Tried by the County and if that fails you can be Tried by the City and if that fails you can be Tried by your Homeowners Association.
First time I remember disagreeing with Justice Thomas.
Hell, I don't even read headlines!
So New York State is free to double-dip on prosecutions of everybody in Trump’s orbit. Swell.
Yup. That's pretty much the state of "law" such as it is that exists in this country today. The court has pretty much abandoned the concept of double jeopardy because it's so important to allow the all-powerful state to have the tools fully available to keep us all in line.
In addition to being able to be charged separately from multiple jurisdictions for the same crime, you also get to deal with 'civil' charges. If you are an enemy of the state, they will get you one way or another, most likely with an array of charges that are all concerning the same action.
BOOKMARK - double jeopardy
How does that strike you and which of the founders would have agreed with such a result?
(No, I haven't read the decision.)
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
- 5th Amendment
Hmmmm, I fail to read ANY exemptions in the plain English of the 5th.
Guess one needs a ‘higher education’ to be able to ‘read between the lines’....or just make s* up
I also agree with Ginsberg and am surprised by Thomas.
I don’t even believe in civil trials for those aquitted in a crimal court as OJ was. I don’t think anyone should be tried twice based upon one set of facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.