SCOTUS Again Upholds Double Prosecution and Punishment for the Same Crime (6-3 Gorsuch teams with Kagan and Sotomayor)

Townhall ^ | 6/22/22 | Jacob Sullum

[Michael.SF.]

The federal government prosecuted Merle Denezpi twice for the same crime. It also punished him twice: the first time with 140 days in a federal detention center, the second time with a prison sentence more than 70 times as long.

Although that may seem like an obvious violation of the Fifth Amendment's ban on double jeopardy, the Supreme Court last week ruled that it wasn't. As the six justices in the majority saw it, that puzzling conclusion was the logical result of the Court's counterintuitive precedents on this subject.

The Fifth Amendment says no person shall "be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." But under the Court's longstanding "dual sovereignty" doctrine, an offense is not "the same" when it is criminalized by two different governments.

That doctrine allows serial state and federal prosecutions for the same crime, opening the door to double punishment or a second trial after an acquittal. Although neither seems just, the Court says both are perfectly constitutional.

The justices reaffirmed that view in a 2019 case involving a man with a felony record who was convicted twice and punished twice for illegally possessing a gun -- first in state court, then in federal court. Although the elements of the crime were the same in both cases, the majority said, the two prosecutions did not amount to double jeopardy because they involved two different "sovereigns."

[Michael.SF.]

Have not studied this in detail, but it sure sounds like double jeopardy to me.

I would side with the minority on this one, based on a first reading.

[SoConPubbie]

Would have been nice if the dumb author of this article gave us pertinent info like which justices voted yes and which voted nay.

[campaignPete R-CT]

So would most of us.

Gorsuch is a serious civil libertarian

[Dilbert San Diego]

Remember the guys in the Rodney King case were tried twice, with the 2nd trial being for violating civil rights? The legal reasoning, as I understand it, was that the trials were for different legal violations.

Ditto OJ Simpson, sued for wrongful death in civil court after his acquittal in the criminal trial.

[RetiredTexasVet]

You have the same thing with Federal hate crime prosecutions ... they just rename the crime as hate.

[Born in 1950]

“studied, detail, minority, on this one, first reading”

I think this is a clue to dispose of the mess. Conjured remedies are fine by them.

[campaignPete R-CT]

The titles gives you the 3

[struggle]

I would say that if there was a state prosecution and then a federal prosecution, it should be illegal because of the Constitution. If the opposite, it would depend on the state constitution.

[ought-six]

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.

[Lazamataz]

Well hell. We might as well go WHOLE EFFIN’ HOG.

- World Court prosecution.
- Federal US Court prosecution.
- State Court prosecution.
- County Court prosecution.
- City Court prosecution.
- Precinct Court prosecution.

I mean hell, we GOTTA be able to nail someone with six seperate prosecutions!!!!

Besides, we’ll sure be able to bankrupt the bast’d.

America is a mockery of itself, at this point.

[Republican Wildcat]

The original poster put that information in the title of the thread.

[logi_cal869]

Six justices nevertheless approved the second prosecution, tracing the authority for the first conviction to a distinct "sovereign": the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. But as Gorsuch notes, the first prosecution was not based on tribal law per se; it was based on a federal regulation that criminalizes "violation of an approved tribal ordinance."

Although the two convictions involved the "same defendant," the "same crime" and the "same prosecuting authority," Gorsuch observes, the Court implausibly concluded that "the Double Jeopardy Clause has nothing to say about this case." Such reasoning amplifies the danger that Gorsuch decried in 2019, inviting the government to "try the same individual for the same crime until it's happy with the result."

I understand the 'sovereign' argument, but I believe it was rendered moot by that which Gorsuch himself cites, as quoted above.

This bodes badly for 2A decisions from the new Court.

[DiogenesLamp]

Ping.

[HamiltonJay]

Doesn’t sound like it to me.

States are NOT subservient to the Federal Government.

You violate a state law that is also a federal law, you have 2 completely different governments charging you independently

Nothing complicated about this at all, nor is it a violation of the constitution.

There is a reason the only people who fell for this claptrap are Gorsuch, Kagan and Sotomayor.

[Flash Bazbeaux]

“Remember the guys in the Rodney King case were tried twice, with the 2nd trial being for violating civil rights? The legal reasoning, as I understand it, was that the trials were for different legal violations.

Ditto OJ Simpson, sued for wrongful death in civil court after his acquittal in the criminal trial.”

You are mixing up several things.

When a “sovereign”, either the State or Federal government, tries you in a criminal matter, they have to bring ALL CHARGES at one time. The State (any State) cannot try you for manslaughter and then try you for murder based on the same incident. So “for different legal violations” is not the criterion.

The difference is State vs. Federal. The State can try you for violating state criminal law. The Feds can try to a second time for violation of Federal criminal statutes, if the act you did was a federal crime as well as a state crime. So even though they are “different legal violations”, the key is that they are different “sovereigns” - the State upholding state criminal law, the Feds upholding Federal criminal law. The notion of two different sovereigns is a function of our federal system.

This is the same reason that a Governor can pardon a murderer convicted in State Court, but the President cannot. Conversly, if you are convicted of a Federal crime, the President can pardon you and the Governor cannot.

The OJ situation is different, because it involves Criminal vs. Civil liability. That was all within State court.

OJ was found not guilty, with a “beyond reasonable doubt” standard, for criminal murder. That was the State prosecuting him.

In the subsequent civil trial, it was his VICTIMS’ families suing him for wrongful death. The families had a claim against OJ irrespective of what the State did or did not do. If someone injures you, through a criminal act, your right to sue them does not disappear just because the State decides to prosecute the perpetrator for a crime.

Civil courts have a lower standard of proof. Instead of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, it was, in OJ’s case, “more probably than not”. So getting OJ in civil court was an easier case to make. But it was not double jeopardy, because the second case did not involve the possibility of punishment by the State (or the Feds, for that matter).

[Alberta's Child]

The bigger issue here is that at least 95% of the U.S. criminal code should be eliminated. Most of the crap in there has no business being prosecuted in a Federal court.

Federal tax evasion, espionage, and treason are pretty much the only "stand-alone" Federal crimes that are worthy of prosecution. Beyond that, the Federal government should only be involved in the pursuit and apprehension of people charged with state crimes who flee to other jurisdictions.

[nicollo]

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.

[GreenLanternCorps]

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.

[Notthereyet]

Your first reading would need to be further researched or reread.

There was a case of Sexual Assault. As usual, the tribal system worked it down to assault and battery, hence such a low sentence.

I am thinking the VICTIM was probably VERY UPSET and wanted JUSTICE.

So....the Federal case was for aggravated sexual abuse. He was found guilty and got a new and heavier sentence.

Not a case of double jeopardy.

What Bush Sr did with the Fed’s Hate Crime WAS double jeopardy and set the ball rolling.......

I knew this case sounded familiar and went back and looked.....

[Tell It Right]

From the article: "for illegally possessing a gun".

Two bill of rights amendments were violated: both the 5th amendment's ban on double jeopardy and the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms.