- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 20,271
- Reaction score
- 28,078
- Location
- Mid-West USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Whether the Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Whether the Court should reinterpret the Double Jeopardy Clause and overturn the long-held understanding that offenses against the laws of different sovereigns are not the “same offence.”
There is a case pending adjudication before SCOTUS where the Petitioner Terance Martez Gamble is asking:
The Petitioner's brief is found here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-646/62536/20180904142141905_17-646 ts.pdf
Currently judicial precedent supports the "separate sovereigns" rule allowing citizens to be tried for the same offense in both Federal and State courts.
Here is the Government's brief:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-646/68026/20181025142116245_17-646 Gamble.pdf
Why is this important?:
Double Jeopardy protections were incorporated as applying to States via Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969).
We all know that Manafort pled guilty to State crimes he has not been charged with as well as Federal crimes he was charged with in his plea agreement with Mueller.
This was done to prevent him from escaping charges in State court if Trump pardons him.
That is the loophole in current Double Jeopardy protections; a person can be tried for the same offense in both State and Federal courts. This has become a major problem as Federal law has expanded criminal codes which mirror State codes in many areas.
If the current SCOTUS should end up overruling precedent in this case, then Manafort could be pardoned by Trump and escape the prosecution trap set for him by his plea deal.
I personally agree with the petitioner's argument, not because of Manafort, but because the separate sovereigns rule does allow trial for the same crime twice, and that is a direct contradiction to the intent of the Double Jeopardy clause. No defendant should have to face the possibility of being punished twice for the same offense.
I will be watching this case closely.
There is a case pending adjudication before SCOTUS where the Petitioner Terance Martez Gamble is asking:
The Petitioner's brief is found here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-646/62536/20180904142141905_17-646 ts.pdf
Currently judicial precedent supports the "separate sovereigns" rule allowing citizens to be tried for the same offense in both Federal and State courts.
Here is the Government's brief:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-646/68026/20181025142116245_17-646 Gamble.pdf
Why is this important?:
Double Jeopardy protections were incorporated as applying to States via Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969).
We all know that Manafort pled guilty to State crimes he has not been charged with as well as Federal crimes he was charged with in his plea agreement with Mueller.
This was done to prevent him from escaping charges in State court if Trump pardons him.
That is the loophole in current Double Jeopardy protections; a person can be tried for the same offense in both State and Federal courts. This has become a major problem as Federal law has expanded criminal codes which mirror State codes in many areas.
If the current SCOTUS should end up overruling precedent in this case, then Manafort could be pardoned by Trump and escape the prosecution trap set for him by his plea deal.
I personally agree with the petitioner's argument, not because of Manafort, but because the separate sovereigns rule does allow trial for the same crime twice, and that is a direct contradiction to the intent of the Double Jeopardy clause. No defendant should have to face the possibility of being punished twice for the same offense.
I will be watching this case closely.
I think this is wrong.There is a case pending adjudication before SCOTUS where the Petitioner Terance Martez Gamble is asking:
The Petitioner's brief is found here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-646/62536/20180904142141905_17-646 ts.pdf
Currently judicial precedent supports the "separate sovereigns" rule allowing citizens to be tried for the same offense in both Federal and State courts.
Here is the Government's brief:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-646/68026/20181025142116245_17-646 Gamble.pdf
Why is this important?:
Double Jeopardy protections were incorporated as applying to States via Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969).
We all know that Manafort pled guilty to State crimes he has not been charged with as well as Federal crimes he was charged with in his plea agreement with Mueller.
This was done to prevent him from escaping charges in State court if Trump pardons him.
That is the loophole in current Double Jeopardy protections; a person can be tried for the same offense in both State and Federal courts. This has become a major problem as Federal law has expanded criminal codes which mirror State codes in many areas.
If the current SCOTUS should end up overruling precedent in this case, then Manafort could be pardoned by Trump and escape the prosecution trap set for him by his plea deal.
I personally agree with the petitioner's argument, not because of Manafort, but because the separate sovereigns rule does allow trial for the same crime twice, and that is a direct contradiction to the intent of the Double Jeopardy clause. No defendant should have to face the possibility of being punished twice for the same offense.
I will be watching this case closely.
There is a case pending adjudication before SCOTUS where the Petitioner Terance Martez Gamble is asking:
The Petitioner's brief is found here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-646/62536/20180904142141905_17-646 ts.pdf
Currently judicial precedent supports the "separate sovereigns" rule allowing citizens to be tried for the same offense in both Federal and State courts.
There is a case pending adjudication before SCOTUS where the Petitioner Terance Martez Gamble is asking:
The Petitioner's brief is found here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-646/62536/20180904142141905_17-646 ts.pdf
Currently judicial precedent supports the "separate sovereigns" rule allowing citizens to be tried for the same offense in both Federal and State courts.
Here is the Government's brief:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-646/68026/20181025142116245_17-646 Gamble.pdf
Why is this important?:
Double Jeopardy protections were incorporated as applying to States via Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969).
We all know that Manafort pled guilty to State crimes he has not been charged with as well as Federal crimes he was charged with in his plea agreement with Mueller.
This was done to prevent him from escaping charges in State court if Trump pardons him.
That is the loophole in current Double Jeopardy protections; a person can be tried for the same offense in both State and Federal courts. This has become a major problem as Federal law has expanded criminal codes which mirror State codes in many areas.
If the current SCOTUS should end up overruling precedent in this case, then Manafort could be pardoned by Trump and escape the prosecution trap set for him by his plea deal.
I personally agree with the petitioner's argument, not because of Manafort, but because the separate sovereigns rule does allow trial for the same crime twice, and that is a direct contradiction to the intent of the Double Jeopardy clause. No defendant should have to face the possibility of being punished twice for the same offense.
I will be watching this case closely.
Yeah, should be interesting. It somehow feels wrong to me that if one jurisdiction fails to convict that another jurisdiction can then try the same thing. It wouldn’t be as much of an issue if the federal government didn’t keep legislating things that should be the domain of the states.
me too-under the Constitution-pre FDR mutations and using the intent of the founders, there really should be no overlapping criminal codes. Now maybe someone shooting a federal judge in his courtroom would justify federal charges and then state charges.
That's ridiculous, Turtle... I can cite you about a dozen Supreme Court precedents supporting the Separate Sovereigns doctrine that pre-date the New Deal - and going as far back as Houston v. Moore, 18 US 1 (1820).
I'm thinking that the only reason the Court gave this case certiorari was to send a clear shot across the bow of the President that they aren't going to put up with any monkeying around where it comes to the Judiciary.
name the cases-the offense that the federal government prosecuted.
Liberals often claim that federal gun control was obviously intended since the founders knew that the states regulated firearms-which is why the leftwing argument is specious
I think this is wrong.
It should not be possible to try someone for the same crime multiple times in different jurisdictions.
I'd rather get rid of pardons, or put in place a system that requires good justification for a pardon, not the fears of someone protecting those who might expose him.
I believe he was asking for the crimes committed, in order to ascertain the extent of criminal creep in the US Code over time. Where perhaps only counterfeiting was counted twice in 1790, but by 2000 there was using a toilet that wasn't low-flow.
Moore v. Illinois, 55 US 13, 20 (1852)
"Every citizen of the United States is also a citizen of a state or territory. He may be said to owe allegiance to two sovereigns, and may be liable to punishment for an infraction of the laws of either. The same act may be an offense or transgression of the laws of both. Thus, an assault upon the marshal of the United States and hindering him in the execution of legal process is a high offense against the United States, for which the perpetrator is liable to punishment, and the same act may be also a gross breach of the peace of the state, a riot, assault, or a murder, and subject the same person to a punishment under the state laws for a misdemeanor or felony. That either or both may if they see fit punish such an offender cannot be doubted. Yet it cannot be truly averred that the offender has been twice punished for the same offense, but only that by one act he has committed two offenses, for each of which he is justly punishable. He could not plead the punishment by one in bar to a conviction by the other; consequently, this Court has decided, in the case of Fox v. State of Ohio, 5 How. 432, that a state may punish the offense of uttering or passing false coin, as a cheat or fraud practiced on its citizens, and, in the case of the United States v. Marigold, 9 How. 560, that Congress, in the proper exercise of its authority, may punish the same act as an offense against the United States." --- Justice Robert C. Grier
---
US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 550-51 (1875)
"The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments -- one State and the other National -- but there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which one possesses the other does not. They are established for different purposes, and have separate jurisdictions. Together, they make one whole, and furnish the people of the United States with a complete government, ample for the protection of all their rights at home and abroad. True, it may sometimes happen that a person is amenable to both jurisdictions for one and the same act. Thus, if a marshal of the United States is unlawfully resisted while executing the process of the courts within a State, and the resistance is accompanied by an assault on the officer, the sovereignty of the United States is violated by the resistance, and that of the State by the breach of peace in the assault. So, too, if one passes counterfeited coin of the United States within a State, it may be an offence against the United States and the State: the United States because it discredits the coin, and the State because of the fraud upon him to whom it is passed. This does not, however, necessarily imply that the two governments possess powers in common, or bring them into conflict with each other. It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and, within their respective spheres, must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return, he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction." --- Chief Justice Morrison Waite
---
Coleman v. Tennessee, 97 US 509, 518 (1878)
"...we do not call in question the correctness of the general doctrine asserted by the Supreme Court of Tennessee that the same act may, in some instances, be an offense against two governments and that the transgressor may be held liable to punishment by both when the punishment is of such a character that it can be twice inflicted or by either of the two governments if the punishment, from its nature, can be only once suffered. It may well be that the satisfaction which the transgressor makes for the violated law of the United States is no atonement for the violated law of Tennessee. But here there is no case presented for the application of the doctrine." --- Justice Stephen J. Field
---
exactly
Nobody disputes that... the principle is elucidated even more succinctly in the 1905 Heff decision.
If the Supremes rule in favor of Gamble, that's going to chap a lot of Trump-hating asses.
.....and chapping liberal asses is what it’s all about, right?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?