Generally, a crime or offense can fall under different jurisdictions, for different causes of action. Thus, a person can be brought up on state charges, and also be brought up on federal charges, both charges arising out of the same event.
Will have to read the dissent. Nevertheless, in a plain reading of the Constitution it’s hard to get around dual sovereignty. But the problem is that, with the growth of federal powers and statutory law encroaching on so many extra-constitutional aspects of daily life, dual sovereignty is today more plainly overlapping or redundant sovereignties, which would argue for this being violation of the double jeopardy clause.
I believe that if a state law preexists the federal law, the state law should be supreme and constitute sole jurisdiction. Gonna have to change the Constitution to get there, though.
This, the act or acts violate multiple laws of two sovereigns.
A knocks B over the head with a 2x4 in Ohio. Throws him in a trunk and drives to Indiana. And then murders B and dismembers the body and buries it
Ohio can prosecute for assault and battery, plus kidnapping.
The United States can prosecute for kidnapping and murder resulting from that kidnapping.
Indiana can prosecute for murder and abuse of a corpse.
The Constitution never gave the Federal government police powers. So there should not even be federal laws that address common crimes that are already being policed by individual states and local communities.
Federal crimes should be crimes that are explicitly committed against the federal government, and that’s it.
The problem here is also selective prosecution, because every murder, every illegal drug possession, is actual a violation of federal and local law, but the defendants are rarely charged twice and tried twice and punished twice. It should come as a surprise to no one, that when they choose to do this, is it for a weapon possession charge.