APP - double jeopardy questions

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
to all those who are lawyers, or who have a decent knowledge of the law.

I watched a one hour show the other night that depicted a texas millionaire who was tried in state court for the murder of his wife. The state tried him based on some recorded tape by the defendants brother that implicates both brothers in a conspiracy to murder the millionaires wife. the prosecution expert debunked the tape after voice analysis showed that the millionaires voice was not the voice on the audio tape. The jury then acquitted.

Afterwards, I guess the feds thought they could then try him and actually are pursuing some remedy to do so in federal court.

Wouldn't this violate double jeopardy? If not, what possible argument could be accepted to try this guy again?
 
there is no double jeopardy between state and federal law...if broke a federal law and a state law that were identical, it still does not violate DJ because they are deemed separate sovereigns and thus if one acquits, it does not apply to the other...it is the federalism idea
 
Yurt said:
there is no double jeopardy between state and federal law...if broke a federal law and a state law that were identical, it still does not violate DJ because they are deemed separate sovereigns and thus if one acquits, it does not apply to the other...it is the federalism idea
Click to expand...
THIS.
 
Yurt said:
there is no double jeopardy between state and federal law...if broke a federal law and a state law that were identical, it still does not violate DJ because they are deemed separate sovereigns and thus if one acquits, it does not apply to the other...it is the federalism idea
Click to expand...

lets go with the federalism idea. It's been my understanding that the federal constitution applies to the states, therefore the US constitution limits both the state and the feds by the words of the constitution itself, so how does it then apply itself differerently in this one circumstance?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
lets go with the federalism idea. It's been my understanding that the federal constitution applies to the states, therefore the US constitution limits both the state and the feds by the words of the constitution itself, so how does it then apply itself differerently in this one circumstance?
Click to expand...

not all federal laws apply to the states....thats the key....laws, not the constitution....

hence why heller does not apply to the states....
 
Yurt said:
not all federal laws apply to the states....thats the key....laws, not the constitution....

hence why heller does not apply to the states....
Click to expand...

have you forgotten the mcdonald case?

and here is the main issue with this. by the US constitution, we are (supposedly) protected against double jeopardy, but by yours and socs thinking, if a person committed a crime in texas and then that crime extended in to louisiana, that person could then be tried three times for the same crime if the government didn't like it that the defendant was acquitted in the previous trials. how does that not violate double jeopardy again?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
have you forgotten the mcdonald case?

and here is the main issue with this. by the US constitution, we are (supposedly) protected against double jeopardy, but by yours and socs thinking, if a person committed a crime in texas and then that crime extended in to louisiana, that person could then be tried three times for the same crime if the government didn't like it that the defendant was acquitted in the previous trials. how does that not violate double jeopardy again?
Click to expand...

which mcdonald case....there are more than one in our criminal justice system

that person would have had to commit a crime in all jurisdictions...hence situs....for example, if you commit crime X in state Y, state Y cannot try you under their laws simply for being caught in their state as they would have no jurisidiction.

federalism touches all states...think marijuana laws....it is legal in CA to have medicinal MJ....but, if the feds wanted to, they could still prosecute you for said crime
 
Yurt said:
which mcdonald case....there are more than one in our criminal justice system
Click to expand...
chicago v. mcdonald.

Yurt said:
that person would have had to commit a crime in all jurisdictions...hence situs....for example, if you commit crime X in state Y, state Y cannot try you under their laws simply for being caught in their state as they would have no jurisidiction.

federalism touches all states...think marijuana laws....it is legal in CA to have medicinal MJ....but, if the feds wanted to, they could still prosecute you for said crime
Click to expand...
the MJ case you hypothesize about doesn't apply. if cali has legalized an act that was formerly criminal, then they are not actively prosecuting a crime.

this isn't rocket science. It is indeed double jeopardy if a state trial by jury finds you not guilty of a crime, yet the feds don't like it and step in to prosecute you for the same crime. the US constitution is supposed to force the US government to provide you protection from overzealous governmental prosecution, just like what my OP stipulated.
 
QUOTE=SmarterThanYou;736641]chicago v. mcdonald.
Click to expand...

holy crap....i don't know if i missed that or forgot that case....:palm:

the MJ case you hypothesize about doesn't apply. if Cali has legalized an act that was formerly criminal, then they are not actively prosecuting a crime.

this isn't rocket science. It is indeed double jeopardy if a state trial by jury finds you not guilty of a crime, yet the feds don't like it and step in to prosecute you for the same crime. the US constitution is supposed to force the US government to provide you protection from overzealous governmental prosecution, just like what my OP stipulated.
Click to expand...

i presented the MJ case in order to show you how a law can be legal in one sovereign and not another....thus.....if a law is both illegal in two differentsovereigns, each sovereign could try the accused.

you mention how if a state finds you innocent....then the feds can't prosecute you....that is not true....the laws are different among the soveriegns.....and at this point....state marijuana laws have not entirely been preempted by federal law because there is no federal case to decide such....at least to my knowledge.....at the appellate level
 
Yurt said:
i presented the MJ case in order to show you how a law can be legal in one sovereign and not another....thus.....if a law is both illegal in two differentsovereigns, each sovereign could try the accused.

you mention how if a state finds you innocent....then the feds can't prosecute you....that is not true....the laws are different among the soveriegns.....and at this point....state marijuana laws have not entirely been preempted by federal law because there is no federal case to decide such....at least to my knowledge.....at the appellate level
Click to expand...

again, i see this as you not seeing things in a constitutional aspect. the constitution protects the people, not provides the government with powers not assigned to them, therefore, if a person is prosecuted in california for MJ, found not guilty, the feds can't prosecute them for you since you lost. the same applies for other laws.

if a law is both illegal in two different sovereigns, each sovereign could try the accused.
Click to expand...
i also wanted to ask again, how is this NOT double jeopardy?
 
Last edited:
SmarterThanYou said:
again, i see this as you not seeing things in a constitutional aspect. the constitution protects the people, not provides the government with powers not assigned to them, therefore, if a person is prosecuted in california for MJ, found not guilty, the feds can't prosecute them for you since you lost. the same applies for other laws.
Click to expand...

Sucks to be you; because the Courts have ruled in favor of this and you are incorrect.
GET IT
GOT IT
GOOD
 
OTE=Smarten;736651]again, i see this as you not seeing things in a constitutional aspect. the constitution protects the people, not provides the government with powers not assigned to them, therefore, if a person is prosecuted in California for MJ, found not guilty, the feds can't prosecute them for you since you lost. the same applies for other laws.
Click to expand...

ok.....do you deny that states have sovereignty? do you deny that the feds have sovereignty?

i'm all about the constitution STY....let's not let our disagreements on century old discussions lead us to calling the other patriot or not patriot....we can if you want....but were does that lead us?

i also wanted to ask again, how is this NOT double jeopardy?
Click to expand...

i don't understand...i explained the concept....so ask me what specifically you don't understand....is this about sovereigns? are you trying to make it out as if the US has true sovereign states, in that, there is not federal state? i don't get it....
 
Yurt said:
there is no double jeopardy between state and federal law...if broke a federal law and a state law that were identical, it still does not violate DJ because they are deemed separate sovereigns and thus if one acquits, it does not apply to the other...it is the federalism idea
Click to expand...

This, it is also two seperate statutes with different elements and thus its not the "same crime" even if it was substantually the same actions that led to the crime.
 
Yurt said:
ok.....do you deny that states have sovereignty? do you deny that the feds have sovereignty?
Click to expand...
not really sure that 'sovereignty' has anything to do with this issue.

Yurt said:
i'm all about the constitution STY....let's not let our disagreements on century old discussions lead us to calling the other patriot or not patriot....we can if you want....but were does that lead us?
Click to expand...
had no intention of doing so.



Yurt said:
i don't understand...i explained the concept....so ask me what specifically you don't understand....is this about sovereigns? are you trying to make it out as if the US has true sovereign states, in that, there is not federal state? i don't get it....
Click to expand...

i know you explained the concept, i just can't see how it doesn't violate the double jeopardy clause, that the feds can retry a person for the same crime if the state fails to convict, especially given http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benton_v._Maryland
 
SmarterThanYou said:
to all those who are lawyers, or who have a decent knowledge of the law.

I watched a one hour show the other night that depicted a texas millionaire who was tried in state court for the murder of his wife. The state tried him based on some recorded tape by the defendants brother that implicates both brothers in a conspiracy to murder the millionaires wife. the prosecution expert debunked the tape after voice analysis showed that the millionaires voice was not the voice on the audio tape. The jury then acquitted.

Afterwards, I guess the feds thought they could then try him and actually are pursuing some remedy to do so in federal court.

Wouldn't this violate double jeopardy? If not, what possible argument could be accepted to try this guy again?
Click to expand...
The Feds would have to try him on different charges, usually they go for a violation of civil rights.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
did you read the linked case?
Click to expand...

that case does not change the facts that sovereignty is the issue...that case just dealth with applying DJ to teh states

this case is about the sovereigny issue and how even two states can try someone for the same crime...though rare, it can happen...but it does explain in greater detail the sovereignty exception to the DJ rule...and since we are talking about fed and state, it is all about the sovereignty issue

HEATH v. ALABAMA, 474 U.S. 82 (1985)

Held:



1. This Court will not decide whether the Alabama trial court had jurisdiction, where petitioner did not claim lack of jurisdiction in his petition to the Alabama Supreme Court but raised the claim for the first time in his petition to this Court. P. 87.

2. Under the dual sovereignty doctrine, successive prosecutions by two States for the same conduct are not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and, hence, Alabama was not barred from trying petitioner. Pp. 87-93.

(a) The dual sovereignty doctrine provides that when a defendant in a single act violates the "peace and dignity" of two sovereigns by breaking the laws of each, he has committed two distinct "offences" for double jeopardy purposes. In applying the doctrine, the crucial determination is whether the two entities that seek successively to prosecute a defendant for the same course of conduct can be termed separate sovereigns. This determination turns on whether the prosecuting entities' powers to undertake criminal prosecutions derive from separate and independent sources. It has been uniformly held that the States are separate sovereigns with respect to the Federal Government because each State's power to prosecute derives from its inherent sovereignty, preserved to it by the Tenth Amendment, and not from the Federal Government. Given the distinct sources of their powers to try a defendant, the States are no less sovereign with respect to each other than they are with respect to the Federal Government. Pp. 87-91.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/474/82.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top