• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme court says person can be charged and tried in state and federal court for same conduct

TurtleDude

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,389
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Supreme Court says person can be charged and tried in state and federal court for same conduct - CNNPolitics

The Supreme Court on Monday said a person can be charged and tried in state and federal court for the same conduct without running afoul to the double jeopardy clause of the US Constitution because state and federal governments are separate sovereigns.

The ruling in a case closely watched for any impact on President Donald Trump's pardon power upholds decades-old precedent and is a loss for an Alabama man, Terance Gamble, who was convicted twice for the same crime in state and federal courts.

I find it interesting that Gorsuch and RBG joined in dissent and were -IMHO correct on this. This ruling will also have an impact on cases where states decriminalize or lessen the penalties on marijuana and a US Attorney decides the defendant needs more time
 
TurtleDude said:
Supreme Court says person can be charged and tried in state and federal court for same conduct - CNNPolitics

The Supreme Court on Monday said a person can be charged and tried in state and federal court for the same conduct without running afoul to the double jeopardy clause of the US Constitution because state and federal governments are separate sovereigns.

The ruling in a case closely watched for any impact on President Donald Trump's pardon power upholds decades-old precedent and is a loss for an Alabama man, Terance Gamble, who was convicted twice for the same crime in state and federal courts.

I find it interesting that Gorsuch and RBG joined in dissent and were -IMHO correct on this. This ruling will also have an impact on cases where states decriminalize or lessen the penalties on marijuana and a US Attorney decides the defendant needs more time
Click to expand...
Be interesting if a state AG tried to retry an individual found not guilty by the Feds or vice versa. And of course there has to be equivalent crimes at both levels.
 
TurtleDude said:
Supreme Court says person can be charged and tried in state and federal court for same conduct - CNNPolitics

The Supreme Court on Monday said a person can be charged and tried in state and federal court for the same conduct without running afoul to the double jeopardy clause of the US Constitution because state and federal governments are separate sovereigns.

The ruling in a case closely watched for any impact on President Donald Trump's pardon power upholds decades-old precedent and is a loss for an Alabama man, Terance Gamble, who was convicted twice for the same crime in state and federal courts.

I find it interesting that Gorsuch and RBG joined in dissent and were -IMHO correct on this. This ruling will also have an impact on cases where states decriminalize or lessen the penalties on marijuana and a US Attorney decides the defendant needs more time
Click to expand...

I was absolutely convinced that SCOTUS would go the other way on this.
 
Bullseye said:
Be interesting if a state AG tried to retry an individual found not guilty by the Feds or vice versa. And of course there has to be equivalent crimes at both levels.
Click to expand...

I just listened to a discussion of this on "Kennedy" with that former Judge as a host. He noted that in this case, it was the exact same conduct. I would note that the federal charges were not something the founders ever supported and only after the FDR use of the commerce clause, could such a double prosecution take place.

I think the defendant was not a sympathetic character but lets look into the future. Say in a state where weed is not legal, so a person with cancer or ALS obtains some weed and is prosecuted but the jury acquits because they see the actions as justified. Then the US Attorney decides to crucify the terminally ill defendant to make a point.

I normally respect and agree with Alito but his "states rights" argument is really specious here
 
Cool, maybe take another look at OJ Simpson!
 
Hamish Howl said:
I was absolutely convinced that SCOTUS would go the other way on this.
Click to expand...

I honestly was not really aware of this case until very recently-and I agree with you.
 
Thingfish said:
Cool, maybe take another look at OJ Simpson!
Click to expand...

Simple murder is not a federal crime, though. The reason why the guys who murdered the civil rights workers almost 60 years ago, were tried under federal law was because they were charged with a 42 USC 1983 violation of violating civil rights under the "color of state law".
 
TurtleDude said:
Simple murder is not a federal crime, though. The reason why the guys who murdered the civil rights workers almost 60 years ago, were tried under federal law was because they were charged with a 42 USC 1983 violation of violating civil rights under the "color of state law".
Click to expand...

That is why I think it makes sense that double jeopardy does not apply. The conduct of the defendant may be the same, but the statutory crimes are not.
 
Napoleon said:
That is why I think it makes sense that double jeopardy does not apply. The conduct of the defendant may be the same, but the statutory crimes are not.
Click to expand...

That is true in the civil rights cases-be it the murder of the civil rights workers-or the cops beating the snot out of Rodney King. In this case-it was pretty much exactly the same thing. I don't think every time someone is caught selling crack or weed, the feds and the state should both try the dealer. I believe the federal government should be drastically limited in what it can prosecute people for-and gun crimes, narcotics crimes (unless it involves wide scale importation across state or national boundaries)-etc are not ones that should be federal in issue. "The commerce clause" criminal empowerment has been vastly abused. Now some crimes I have no issue with-Kidnapping -because kidnappers often travel interstate makes sense, and robbery of federal insured savings institutions-yes. Felon in possession of a gun-nope.
 
TurtleDude said:
Simple murder is not a federal crime, though. The reason why the guys who murdered the civil rights workers almost 60 years ago, were tried under federal law was because they were charged with a 42 USC 1983 violation of violating civil rights under the "color of state law".
Click to expand...
murder may not be, but perhaps there’s an aspect of the case that is, maybe they could make something up, it worked for Hillary , Obama, Biden, brennen, Comey, mueller
 
Trump's not going to be happy about this.
 
TurtleDude said:
Supreme Court says person can be charged and tried in state and federal court for same conduct - CNNPolitics

The Supreme Court on Monday said a person can be charged and tried in state and federal court for the same conduct without running afoul to the double jeopardy clause of the US Constitution because state and federal governments are separate sovereigns.

The ruling in a case closely watched for any impact on President Donald Trump's pardon power upholds decades-old precedent and is a loss for an Alabama man, Terance Gamble, who was convicted twice for the same crime in state and federal courts.

I find it interesting that Gorsuch and RBG joined in dissent and were -IMHO correct on this. This ruling will also have an impact on cases where states decriminalize or lessen the penalties on marijuana and a US Attorney decides the defendant needs more time
Click to expand...

Haven’t read any of the opinions yet, though I plan to, but my first thought is the opposite. Why should a person’s possible sentence depend on who prosecuted him first? Moreover, why should the sovereign state of Missouri’s ability to enforce its laws and protect its citizens possibly be abridged by an incompetent US Attorney?

I’m open to changing my thoughts upon reading them though.
 
Napoleon said:
That is why I think it makes sense that double jeopardy does not apply. The conduct of the defendant may be the same, but the statutory crimes are not.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. IMO the whole point of protections against double jeopardy is exactly what the petitioner was concerned about, being tried again for what is basically the same crime; and being punished twice for it.

IMO the mere fact that the laws are worded differently should not justify being punished more than once for the same crime. It was one thing when dealing with society pre-Incorporation, but once it became acceptable that portions of the Federal Constitution can be incorporated as applying to State's, then upon such incorporation it should be applied equitably IMHO.

I am very disappointed with this decision.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
I don't agree. IMO the whole point of protections against double jeopardy is exactly what the petitioner was concerned about, being tried for exactly the same crime and being punished twice for it.

IMM the mere fact that the laws are worded differently should not justify being punished more than once for the same crime.
Click to expand...

When a cop beats up a citizen and is acquitted in state court-that is the crime of assault and battery-or perhaps, attempted murder. The federal crime is not assault nor attempted murder, but depriving the citizen of his civil rights "under the color of state law" (42 USC 1983). Now I can sort of see the rationale for this-given that Klan dominated courts constantly acquitted state cops who violated the rights of blacks.

But a case like this one is far different. It is the same offense and there really is no need for a federal crime to exist when the exact same conduct is a state crime.
 
TurtleDude said:
When a cop beats up a citizen and is acquitted in state court-that is the crime of assault and battery-or perhaps, attempted murder. The federal crime is not assault nor attempted murder, but depriving the citizen of his civil rights "under the color of state law" (42 USC 1983). Now I can sort of see the rationale for this-given that Klan dominated courts constantly acquitted state cops who violated the rights of blacks.

But a case like this one is far different. It is the same offense and there really is no need for a federal crime to exist when the exact same conduct is a state crime.
Click to expand...

I agree with your example. Back in Jim Crows days juries presented with clear evidence of guilt would simply acquit. The Federal government then tried the person for violation of civil rights because the jury ruled prejudicially against the manifest weight of the evidence showing the defendant violated the victim's right to life.

In the case before SCOTUS in your OP, that was not the case at all. The petitioner was convicted of the gun crimes, served his time and suddenly faced Federal charges for the exact same crime. Where is the justice in this?
 
Captain Adverse said:
I agree with your example. Back in Jim Crows days juries presented with clear evidence of guilt would simply acquit. The Federal government then tried the person for violation of civil rights because the jury ruled prejudicially against the manifest weight of the evidence showing the defendant violated the victim's right to life.

In the case before SCOTUS in your OP, that was not the case at all. The petitioner was convicted of the gun crimes, served his time and suddenly faced Federal charges for the exact same crime. Where is the justice in this?
Click to expand...

we agree completely. and this opens the door up for all sorts of prosecutorial misconduct.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I don't agree. IMO the whole point of protections against double jeopardy is exactly what the petitioner was concerned about, being tried again for what is basically the same crime; and being punished twice for it.

IMO the mere fact that the laws are worded differently should not justify being punished more than once for the same crime. It was one thing when dealing with society pre-Incorporation, but once it became acceptable that portions of the Federal Constitution can be incorporated as applying to State's, then upon such incorporation it should be applied equitably IMHO.

I am very disappointed with this decision
Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:
we agree completely. and this opens the door up for all sorts of prosecutorial misconduct.
Click to expand...
Prosecutors have been using this loophole in the constitution to go around double jeopardy for some time now, it's nothing new.

It's just like how police use search dogs, the "smell" of drugs, and stop and identify and duty to inform laws, to bypass the high standards of probable cause for a search.

The courts have allowed this stuff for years.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I don't agree. IMO the whole point of protections against double jeopardy is exactly what the petitioner was concerned about, being tried again for what is basically the same crime; and being punished twice for it.

IMO the mere fact that the laws are worded differently should not justify being punished more than once for the same crime. It was one thing when dealing with society pre-Incorporation, but once it became acceptable that portions of the Federal Constitution can be incorporated as applying to State's, then upon such incorporation it should be applied equitably IMHO.

I am very disappointed with this decision.
Click to expand...


In this case, he had previously served time for a felony and was later found in possession of a firearm. He was convicted of the State charge and plead guilty to the federal charge. The separate sovereigns doctrine has been around for 172 years and affirmed by the Court on a multitude of occasions. Overturning it would place the Supreme Court in the unenviable position of having to determine jurisdictional winners where statutory crimes exist within both Federal and State law for the same underlying conduct.
 
Napoleon said:
In this case, he had previously served time for a felony and was later found in possession of a firearm. He was convicted of the State charge and plead guilty to the federal charge. The separate sovereigns doctrine has been around for 150 years and affirmed by the Court since the 1950s. Overturning it would place the Supreme Court in the unenviable position of having to determine jurisdictional winners where statutory crimes exist within both Federal and State law for the same underlying conduct.
Click to expand...
Regardless, double jeopardy is double jeopardy.

When a person is put on trial for a crime related to conduct for which a jury has already tried them, they are by definition being subjected to double jeopardy.

The courts might look the other way and allow it, but that's what it is, and I still don't like it.
 
MovingPictures said:
Prosecutors have been using this loophole in the constitution to go around double jeopardy for some time now, it's nothing new.

It's just like how police use search dogs, the "smell" of drugs, and stop and identify and duty to inform laws, to bypass the high standards of probable cause for a search.

The courts have allowed this stuff for years.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I don't recall such a clear case of double jeopardy going up this high in the appellate ladder. And maybe more people will pay attention to this sort of abuse
 
MovingPictures said:
Regardless, double jeopardy is double jeopardy.

When a person is put on trial for a crime related to conduct for which a jury has already tried them, they are by definition being subjected to double jeopardy.

The courts might look the other way and allow it, but that's what it is, and I still don't like it.
Click to expand...

I guess that depends on whether you believe that the same conduct can yield multiple crimes in different jurisdictions. We do prosecute people on multiple counts of, for example, vehicular homicide even if all of the victims died in a single crash. So if we accept that a person can be tried per victim for the same conduct/act then why not per jurisdiction? Also keeping in mind that crimes are not only committed against individuals but against society at large and the sovereign entity as well.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
Supreme Court says person can be charged and tried in state and federal court for same conduct - CNNPolitics

The Supreme Court on Monday said a person can be charged and tried in state and federal court for the same conduct without running afoul to the double jeopardy clause of the US Constitution because state and federal governments are separate sovereigns.

The ruling in a case closely watched for any impact on President Donald Trump's pardon power upholds decades-old precedent and is a loss for an Alabama man, Terance Gamble, who was convicted twice for the same crime in state and federal courts.

I find it interesting that Gorsuch and RBG joined in dissent and were -IMHO correct on this. This ruling will also have an impact on cases where states decriminalize or lessen the penalties on marijuana and a US Attorney decides the defendant needs more time
Click to expand...
Yow!

Look, I think Trump skated quite a bit federally, and I'll be happy if he gets his comeuppance at the hands of NY state. But this decision just strikes me as wrong. Federalism makes our Constitution unique & interesting, but sure seems to have negative effects as well.
 
Napoleon said:
I guess that depends on whether you believe that the same conduct can yield multiple crimes in different jurisdictions. We do prosecute people on multiple counts of, for example, vehicular homicide even if all of the victims died in a single crash. So if we accept that a person can be tried per victim for the same conduct/act then why not per jurisdiction?
Click to expand...

can you imagine this scenario-- a country prosecutor-or the District's US attorney-is criticized for a lack of convictions. So the prosecutor-be he state or federal-meets with his counterpart and they both start charging people that the other governmental entity had previously convicted. So the hundreds of say Franklin county Ohio felons convicted of the ORC prohibitions upon felons having guns-are now charged by AUSA Glassman under 18 USC 922. And all the felony crack dealers that Glassman's office has convicted, are now charged by the Franklin County Prosecutor for ORC drug crimes. Do you see a issue?
 
Napoleon said:
I guess that depends on whether you believe that the same conduct can yield multiple crimes in different jurisdictions. We do prosecute people on multiple counts of, for example, vehicular homicide even if all of the victims died in a single crash. So if we accept that a person can be tried per victim for the same conduct then why not per jurisdiction?
Click to expand...
Because each murdered individual is their own victim and entitled to be recognized by a court uniquely.

A better analogy would be if a state jury found the accused "not guilty" on multiple murder charges, while a federal jury found them "guilty" of the one of the murders, then acquitting them of all the rest. That would be a clear case of double jeopardy and nobody would argue it wasn't.
 
Chomsky said:
Yow!

Look, I think Trump skated quite a bit federally, and I'll be happy if he gets his comeuppance at the hands of NY state. But this decision just strikes me as wrong. Federalism makes our Constitution unique & interesting, but sure seems to have negative effects as well.
Click to expand...

this sort of stuff normally never happened until two things occurred.


the first was the post civil war amendments-and for good reason-as we noted, Klan dominated courts acquitted racist murderers of blacks etc. The second was more nefarious-the expansion of congressional powers by FDR with the commerce clause, allowed the federal government to criminalize actions that already were being prosecuted as state crimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom