Posted on 06/22/2022 12:43:06 PM PDT by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Plus he has to be destroyed in the “court of public opinion”, so no FaceBook, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. to defend himself or get his life back together after getting out of prison... if he ever does.
The headline provided that information.
The example crime involve crossing a state line in commission of a crime. The created a federal interest.
I’m quite surprised with Judge Scalia and Judge Thomas.
I’d have to agree.
It is good to see the Supreme Court recognize that states are sovereign and have never given up their sovereignty, except for those few, limited, enumerated grants of authority to the federal government mentioned in the Constitution.
The framers of the Constitution, however, specifically wanted to protect individuals from being retried, and retried, and retried for the “same offense” because of their experience with English authorities.
Now those protections - like other protections in the Bill of Rights - are being swept away by wise guys with enough language skills to run circles around five year olds with persuasive reasoning that a man is a woman.
This was a monumentally stupid ruling, especially since it came from two different departments of the same federal government.
Even allowing it for state vs local is bad.
That’s because, at the time of the constitutional creation, the federal government’s laws would be those laws binding the states with minimal laws affecting individuals because they all fell under state laws. (And even then would’ve probably only applied to those crimes committed across state lines)
It wasn’t until the federal bureaucracy took off that it was used as a Cudgel.
Lot of stories with different information (thanks reporters). Thanks for clearing up.
And that happened after the disaster at Appomattox.
You’re not facing imprisonment or the death penalty in civil court, so double jeopardy isn’t relevant.
“Would have been nice if the dumb author of this article gave us pertinent info like which justices voted yes and which voted nay.”
Duh, they did. Read the dang article before critizing.
“I would not vouch for others, but I can not imagine CLARENCE THOMAS, or SAMUEL ALITO, ever voting AGAINST the prohibition of DOUBLE JEOPARDY!”
I suspect there is a simple answer. Both believe the courts should follow the law and the Constitution, even though they believe the law to be wrong. Otherwise you are in banana republic territory.
The real problem is that the federal government is passing laws regularly that double up on existing state laws. Every federal law that duplicates a state law should be repealed.
The present system will eventually lead to the elimination of local law enforcement and replaced by a federal police.
Think about that...Do you really want the FBI enforcing local law? And all trials in a federal court? Both immune from the will of the voting public? I don’t think that is what we want.
A late hour noise complaint to be enforced by the same tactics used in General Flynn’s arrest or the “visit” to Jame’s O’Keef’s house?
“The original poster put that information in the title of the thread.”
Looks like he read the article!
Does that mean OJ Simpson is at risk of going to prison?
The constitution did not differentiate between Federal and State crime. It simply said you can not endure double jeopardy.
I do understand prosecution under Federal Law and State Law. It should be one or the either and not both.
The USA has become a giant prosecutorial nightmare that deserves to be dismantled and burned in a tribal fire . Financing the court machine and the attendant goons required to enable it will help destroy this once great nation . I can’t understand why they want to destroy America but maybe we can rebuild something better . If we the people win . I am afraid that I would have voted for the minority also. Too damn much gov interference in our lives . Gonna’ put some shiny 20 “ chrome rims on that machine with this ruling .
He already did.
Had he not murdered his wife and the waiter, he never would have gone to prison for what occurred in Las Vegas.
Sounds like the prosecutor was pissed at the light sentence and sought retribution, not justice.
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.