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.
“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).
Civil suits are different than criminal court. No double jeopardy
Simpson doesn’t apply but the Rodney king cops was a clear violation of the double jeopardy rule. They just changed the label and charged the cops again to keep the rioting at bay.
The OJ Simpson cases are on a different difference. The murder case was for a crime, the civil case was for money damages, no risk to life or limb or liberty, just to checkbook.
What SCOTUS is endorsing is a person being charged and tried twice in crimimal courts, by the government, for the same act. Once by a state, once by the feds. makes sense. We each have more than one government as an adversary. It’s the nature of living under federalism.
“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.”
The first trial was under California law in the California court system. The second trial was under Federal law in the Federal court system. Different crimes, different courts, and different prosecuting jurisdictions. No double-jeopardy.
“Ditto OJ Simpson, sued for wrongful death in civil court after his acquittal in the criminal trial.”
The Simpson case involves civil and criminal trials. The burden of proof for civil cases is lower, hence the different verdicts.
You’re not facing imprisonment or the death penalty in civil court, so double jeopardy isn’t relevant.