- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Supreme Court affirms dual sovereignty exception to double jeopardy clause
Posted on 6/18/19 at 7:16 am
Posted on 6/18/19 at 7:16 am
Terrible Law!
7-2 Decision.
Ginsburg and Gorsuch were the 2 dissenting opinions. Good for them
7-2 Decision.
Ginsburg and Gorsuch were the 2 dissenting opinions. Good for them
quote:
Supreme Court affirms dual sovereignty exception to double jeopardy clause
by Xi Lucy Shi
June 17, 2019
The United States Supreme Court held on Monday that criminal defendants may be prosecuted for the same offenses in both federal and state court, upholding a long-standing exception to the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause.
The case concerned Terance Gamble who has been convicted by Alabama for possessing a firearm as a felon and now faces prosecution by the United States under its own felon-in-possession law. Gamble moved to dismiss, arguing that the federal indictment exposed him to double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment and asked to overrule the dual-sovereignty doctrine.
The Constitution’s double jeopardy clause generally forbids any person be “for the same offence…twice put in jeopardy”. But the Supreme Court has long held that under “dual-sovereignty” doctrine, a State may prosecute a defendant under state law even if the Federal Government has prosecuted him for the same conduct under a federal statute.
The Court rejected his arguments, holding the dual-sovereignty doctrine is not an exception to the double jeopardy right but follows from the Fifth Amendment’s text. Justice Alito wrote in the majority’s opinion that states are separate sovereigns much as foreign nations are.
LINK
6
Posted on 6/18/19 at 7:17 am to NC_Tigah
Lord, remember when THIS was the REAL reason Drumph had to push through Kav?
Posted on 6/18/19 at 7:24 am to NC_Tigah
Why would the feds prosecute if the state already found him guilty?
ETA: wouldn’t it make more sense for the feds and state to decide between themselves which one was going to try the case beforehand?
ETA: wouldn’t it make more sense for the feds and state to decide between themselves which one was going to try the case beforehand?
This post was edited on 6/18/19 at 7:26 am
Posted on 6/18/19 at 7:28 am to Oddibe
quote:
ETA: wouldn’t it make more sense for the feds and state to decide between themselves which one was going to try the case beforehand?
99% of the time they do. if the feds want a guy, the state will delay prosecution until that's resolved (federal system moves much faster and usually will, at worst, run the state charge concurrent
Posted on 6/18/19 at 7:32 am to NC_Tigah
So, states are "sovereign like foreign nations?" Hmm. Where is this heading?
Posted on 6/18/19 at 7:34 am to BestBanker
while the post-Wickard federal expansion ignores that concept, it's the basis of our government
why we have a Senate and use the Electoral College. why states and localities have their own police forces and school systems
it's actually a concept that leads to a lot of confusion with foreign people trying to understand our government. they're almost all from purely federal systems where EVERYTHING is federal and, at best, they may have a small set of provincial regulations under federal benevolence
why we have a Senate and use the Electoral College. why states and localities have their own police forces and school systems
it's actually a concept that leads to a lot of confusion with foreign people trying to understand our government. they're almost all from purely federal systems where EVERYTHING is federal and, at best, they may have a small set of provincial regulations under federal benevolence
Posted on 6/18/19 at 7:39 am to BestBanker
quote:Hopefully it will lead to more authority to the states and limit the feds power grab using the “commerce clause”.
Where is this heading?
Posted on 6/18/19 at 7:41 am to SlowFlowPro
Most other nations would consider or refer to the structure we have as “semi-autonomous”.
Posted on 6/18/19 at 7:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Lord, remember when THIS was the REAL reason Drumph had to push through Kav?
Yep. And Kav voted the way the progtards wanted. Are progs ever right about anything?
This post was edited on 6/18/19 at 7:44 am
Posted on 6/18/19 at 7:45 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Meaning 1% are subject to double jeopardy. If the Feds try a case, there is no way in hell an innocent defendant should then be subject to a second trial on identical charges. That is horrible!
99% of the time they do.
Further it theoretically opens the door for convicting a defendant on a 20yr offense, and by stacking fed & state verdicts, putting him behind bars for 40 yrs.
Posted on 6/18/19 at 7:49 am to Oddibe
quote:
Why would the feds prosecute if the state already found him guilty?
Usually, the fed takes the lead. If the feds come after you, they usually win. They have something like a 99% conviction rate. Also, if the fed gets you, you go to federal prison not state. However, states like NY are starting to weaponize their justice systems for SJW causes and OMB.
Posted on 6/18/19 at 7:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:That would only hold true in this instance if SCOTUS excluded it's oversight of "dual sovereignty" cases.
while the post-Wickard federal expansion ignores that concept, it's the basis of our government
Of course, SCOTUS doesn't exclude itself. It imposes its sole sovereignty when it deems fit.
There is no dual sovereignty when SCOTUS can, AND DOES, overrule state courts.
Alito's argument is utter nonsense.
Posted on 6/18/19 at 8:23 am to NC_Tigah
Only Ginsberg and Gorsuch dissenting (I wonder how that odd deal got brokered)
Posted on 6/18/19 at 8:25 am to NC_Tigah
quote:I like it. It needs to be repeated far more frequently.
Justice Alito wrote in the majority’s opinion that states are separate sovereigns
Posted on 6/18/19 at 8:29 am to NC_Tigah
My off the cuff response is this decision is correct if you are following the traditional view that the bill of rights apply to the federal government only. Therefore, double jeopardy protection was intended to limit the feds from prosecuting twice.
Now, we all know most of that has been incorporated to the states etc, and the reality of dual sovereigns has been severely curtailed with commerce clause arguments and so forth.
So I'd prefer the powers that be who want to stop this to adopt the pertinent legislation and/or amendments to do so. I think that is in keeping with the traditional view of government powers and responsibilities, even if the reality is much more messy.
Now, we all know most of that has been incorporated to the states etc, and the reality of dual sovereigns has been severely curtailed with commerce clause arguments and so forth.
So I'd prefer the powers that be who want to stop this to adopt the pertinent legislation and/or amendments to do so. I think that is in keeping with the traditional view of government powers and responsibilities, even if the reality is much more messy.
This post was edited on 6/18/19 at 8:35 am
Posted on 6/18/19 at 9:09 am to NC_Tigah
I don't like this decision, but it is the Constitutional and historically correct outcome. States are sovereigns. Wickard, and the bulk of federal criminal laws (especially with regards to drugs) need to be overturned because they ignore this concept.
This post was edited on 6/18/19 at 9:13 am
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News