SCOTUS will make big ruling on double jeopordy - Thomas & Ginsburg may agree!

[Libertarian01]

A very interesting case whose decision could have massive repercussions throughout the LE and legal communities.

https://apnews.com/c9c65cff3e4f4420aa4fe86d7554ea6d

If the court agrees with Gamble then, wow!

Lawyers, LE, what say you? How will this go? While I am conflicted I know how I HOPE it will go.

Regards,

Doug

 

[T.Lex]

Well, the court just recently agreed on another important issue involving the Administrative Branch of government, so I think this one will trend the same way.

That is: the existing tragedy and comity is preferable to a more monolithic law enforcement structure.



A criminal being prosecuted by both the state and federal sovereigns is not something I'm going to lose much sleep over - except for the idea that one of the 2 should probably expend the resources more efficiently.

 

[Fargo]

Not really a massive number shift, the feds prosecute very very few cases the state also is prosecuting. Indiana already has a law prohibiting a state punishment where there is a federal conviction.

Getting two bites at the Apple where it is one crime has never sat right with me, I'm guessing that they hold that double Jeopardy does apply if the elements are exactly the same. If there is any substantial difference in the elements, I doubt they are going to prevent dual prosecution.

 

[KellyinAvon]

This has huge ramifications for active duty military. Being prosecuted at the federal level after being prosecuted at the State level has always been a harsh reality for AD military. Guess what?? That **** ends if this becomes the law of the land.

There are a few things I've always thought were wrong. Legal double-jeopardy for those sworn to support and defend the Constitution is obviously one of them.

 

[actaeon277]

I also think it's wrong that you can be tried in Civil AND Criminal courts for the same crime.

 

[Libertarian01]

My only emotional desire to keep it at status quo goes back to Mississippi Burning, where a bunch of KKK murdered civil rights workers and the Mississippi courts poo-poo'd the crime as they were "agitatin' local negros." That said, I must admit that this is an "emotional" desire to see justice and not a logically consistent one.

Regarding the "civil v/ criminal" what about OJ Simpson? Where he was found not guilty in a criminal court but guilty in civil court and lost a lot of money? Should a guilty/not guilty finding in one court necessarily negate another? I'll have to think on that for awhile.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Spear Dane]

Well, the court just recently agreed on another important issue involving the Administrative Branch of government, so I think this one will trend the same way.

That is: the existing tragedy and comity is preferable to a more monolithic law enforcement structure.



A criminal being prosecuted by both the state and federal sovereigns is not something I'm going to lose much sleep over - except for the idea that one of the 2 should probably expend the resources more efficiently.

See, that's your issue. 'Criminals' are never prosecuted. Innocent people are prosecuted and become criminals only upon conviction. Keep in mind it isn't that hard for an innocent person to find themselves falsely accused. It happens all the time.

 

[Spear Dane]

I also think it's wrong that you can be tried in Civil AND Criminal courts for the same crime.

Me too. What 'justice' can there be when you get tried again in a different court after a court with much higher standards of guilt has found you innocent?

 

[Rookie]

https://www-m.cnn.com/2014/07/18/us/death-row-stories-hennis/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/

 

[hoosierdoc]

See, that's your issue. 'Criminals' are never prosecuted. Innocent people are prosecuted and become criminals only upon conviction. Keep in mind it isn't that hard for an innocent person to find themselves falsely accused. It happens all the time.

Innocent has nothing to do with guilty v not guilty. Verdicts do not establish fact IMO

A team of military attorneys evaluated the case and the Army decided to pursue it. Hennis was recalled to active duty two years after his retirement and promptly arrested on three counts of murder.

that’s just nuts that they can do that

 

[CampingJosh]

What 'justice' can there be when you get tried again in a different court after a court with much higher standards of guilt has found you innocent?

Criminal court never finds a defendant innocent. The ruling is always that the evidence presented shows that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or that the evidence presented did not. Many defendants who in fact were guilty have received acquittals because the evidence to demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was lacking.

More guilty people should go free than innocence people be convicted. That's what the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard seems intended for. And those people should not be shielded from civil suits. If that were the case, victims would be incentivized not to work with the criminal justice system (with its high standard for conviction) and instead rely on the civil court system to increase the likelihood that at least some justice would be served. And that's a very bad outcome.

 

[T.Lex]

See, that's your issue. 'Criminals' are never prosecuted. Innocent people are prosecuted and become criminals only upon conviction. Keep in mind it isn't that hard for an innocent person to find themselves falsely accused. It happens all the time.

I have many problems - but that kind of misunderstanding ain't one.

I'll restate my support.

It is a states' rights issue, to me.

It matters not a whit to me if the feds decide to pursue a case or not. The state's ability to do that should exist ENTIRELY separately. Let the state decide if a federal prosecution is an appropriate remedy.

Let's put this in the context that the MSM wants to portray it - pardon/clemency. If a governor pardons someone for a crime, should that bind the feds? If POTUS pardons, should that bind the states?

I say no.

What happened to all the INGOtarian strict constructionists?

 

[Spear Dane]

I have many problems - but that kind of misunderstanding ain't one.

I'll restate my support.

It is a states' rights issue, to me.

It matters not a whit to me if the feds decide to pursue a case or not. The state's ability to do that should exist ENTIRELY separately. Let the state decide if a federal prosecution is an appropriate remedy.

Let's put this in the context that the MSM wants to portray it - pardon/clemency. If a governor pardons someone for a crime, should that bind the feds? If POTUS pardons, should that bind the states?

I say no.

What happened to all the INGOtarian strict constructionists?

The Presidential pardon powers derive from the Constitution. If you want that to be submissive to states rights...what else? Where does that line of thought end? We have enough problems with locales infringing on rights as it is.

 

[Libertarian01]

I have many problems - but that kind of misunderstanding ain't one.

I'll restate my support.

It is a states' rights issue, to me.

It matters not a whit to me if the feds decide to pursue a case or not. The state's ability to do that should exist ENTIRELY separately. Let the state decide if a federal prosecution is an appropriate remedy.

Let's put this in the context that the MSM wants to portray it - pardon/clemency. If a governor pardons someone for a crime, should that bind the feds? If POTUS pardons, should that bind the states?

I say no.

What happened to all the INGOtarian strict constructionists?

I agree with you sir IF there is not an overlap of crime. If I am caught driving while drunk only the state gets a bite at me. If I murder someone for their money only the state gets a bite at me, mostly. However, if I murder someone because I hate them then the state can get a bite at me for murder/manslaughter/etc and to be politically correct the feds can come after me for violating their civil rights.

I prefer a separation of power. If I murder a person because I don't like their group then there should be a split; either the state can come after me OR the feds, but not both. To do otherwise is to put me in double jeopardy for the same crime. The "government" gets two (2) bites at me. What if a state said it was going to allow large municipalities to make murder a crime? Then there could be three (3) bites. And then the municipality could give authority to townships to make murder a crime. Where does it end?

I remember sometime back in the 90's (IIRC) that the feds decided to make carjacking a crime as it "...interfered with interstate commerce..." as an excuse. Fortunately SCOTUS found that an overreach and struck it down.

I guess I am preferring that a brighter line existed between the powers. IF the governor can pardon someone for the state crime, then there is no way the feds can come after them for the same act. Same goes the other way, IF the president can pardon someone for a federal crime then there is no way for the state to prosecute for the same act.

Not arguing here, just voicing some thoughts based upon what you said.

I have thought about it and I don't mind the civil and criminal, so long as there is no overlap. If Idiot Bob drives drunk and smashes my leg to pieces Denny can come and take him away, prosecute him, and deprive him of liberty. However, he has damaged me personally. If I sue Idiot Bob in civil court I cannot place him in jeopardy of losing his freedom, I can only ask for compensation as I will never walk right again and live with pain forever. Here double jeopardy doesn't attach because the state doesn't take his money and I cannot put him in jail. That said, I would be fine with saying that if Idiot Bob is incarcerated for driving drunk and smashing my leg then I cannot sue for punitive damages as he is already being punished. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Whatever happens it will be interesting.

Regards,

Doug

 

[HoughMade]

I don't know why we would want to reduce the power of the states even more by doing away with dual sovereignty.

 

[Libertarian01]

I don't know why we would want to reduce the power of the states even more by doing away with dual sovereignty.

Are you saying that everywhere there is overlap the authority would automatically default to the federal law enforcement?

Doug

 

[Fargo]

I don't know why we would want to reduce the power of the states even more by doing away with dual sovereignty.

Isn’t the solution to that to hold the federal government to it’s enumerated powers?

 

[HoughMade]

Isn’t the solution to that to hold the federal government to it’s enumerated powers?

I have always agreed with that.

To be more specific, assuming the federal government has the power to make a certain activity a crime, if it is also a state crime. I do not believe prosecuting both the federl and state crime separately violates the double jeopardy clause.

 

[T.Lex]

Isn't part of this a political issue - to be resolved by the respective electorate?

That is, if my local prosecutor seeks a conviction against a guy who is already serving a federal sentence for the same crime... that seems like a waste of money.

If that guy is Tim McVeigh, maybe not.

 

[HoughMade]

Isn't part of this a political issue - to be resolved by the respective electorate?

That is, if my local prosecutor seeks a conviction against a guy who is already serving a federal sentence for the same crime... that seems like a waste of money.

If that guy is Tim McVeigh, maybe not.

I agree. I'm not saying it's a good idea to have two prosecutions. As you rightly point out, Tim McVeigh killed 168 people. He was executed for killing 8 federal law enforcement officers.

Incidentally, it is frequently reported that Oklahoma "did not file murder charges for the other 160 people he killed", but I assure you that if it had, it would have filed charges for all 168 murders. Just because 8 were prosecuted federally does not mean those 8 could not be prosecuted at the state level.

What about states that do not have the death penalty? Commit a terrorist act killing federal agents in Michigan and without dual sovereignty, pleading guilty to the murders in state court would prevent administering the death penalty by the feds.