User Tag List

Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Supreme Court Set To Hear Landmark Case On Double Jeopardy

  1. #1
    VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Overall activity: 79.0%

    Traddles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    6,300
    Thanks
    1,834
    Thanked: 7,233
    Rep Power
    14227552

    Supreme Court Set To Hear Landmark Case On Double Jeopardy

    Supreme Court Set To Hear Landmark Case On Double Jeopardy

    Later this week, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case that could have far-reaching implications for criminal defendants who find themselves charged with crimes in both Federal and state court for what is essentially the same offense:

    The Supreme Court next week takes up the case of a small-time Alabama felon, Terance Gamble, who complains that his convictions by state and federal prosecutors for the same gun possession crime violate constitutional protections against double jeopardy.
    ...
    The double jeopardy clause of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment prohibits more than one prosecution or punishment for the same offense. But the Supreme Court since the 1850s has made an exception, allowing successive prosecutions and punishments if one is brought by state prosecutors and the other by the federal government. (One early case from that time involved counterfeiting; another was prosecution of someone harboring a fugitive slave.)
    ...
    The real motivation for the court to reconsider the separate sovereigns doctrine came from liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who expressed the desire in an opinion two years ago. Her ally in that call? Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas.

    “The double jeopardy proscription is intended to shield individuals from the harassment of multiple prosecutions for the same misconduct,” Ginsburg wrote in 2016. “Current ‘separate sovereigns’ doctrine hardly serves that objective.”
    Amy Howe previews this week’s argument for SCOTUSBlog:

    In the Supreme Court, the federal government insists that the separate sovereigns doctrine should remain in place. The text of the double jeopardy clause bars successive prosecution and punishment for the same offense, the government emphasizes, not for the same conduct. And when it uses the term “offence,” the government continues, the double jeopardy clause is referring to the violation of a law. The same conduct can violate two different sovereigns’ laws and constitute two different offenses, which each sovereign can then punish and prosecute separately. If the Framers had wanted the clause to apply more broadly, the government adds, they would have used the term “conduct” or “acts” rather than “offence.”

    Gamble offers a very different interpretation of the text, telling the justices that nothing in the text points to any exceptions to the double jeopardy clause. Instead, he stresses, the text of the clause bars prosecution of the “same offence,” without suggesting that two prosecutions for the same offense would be acceptable as long as they are prosecuted by two separate sovereigns. To the contrary, Gamble observes, Congress considered but rejected an exception that would have allowed the federal government to prosecute a defendant even after he’d been convicted for the same offense under state law.

    Gamble contends that the separate sovereigns doctrine is also inconsistent with the purpose of the double jeopardy clause. Permitting two consecutive prosecutions for the same conduct on the ground that prosecutions are brought by two different sovereigns, Gamble argues, “hardly serves the deeply rooted principles of finality and fairness the Clause was designed to protect,” particularly when it would still require two trials and could potentially lead to double punishments.
    ...
    ... As a general rule, though, the Double Jeopardy Clause stands for the proposition that prosecutors only get one “bite at the apple,” and if they’re unable to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt then they can’t turn around and retry the Defendant again, even if they obtain evidence after the trial that clearly indicates the Defendant’s guilt. It also applies to Defendants who have been convicted of a crime under a specific set of facts and bars prosecutors from attempting to retry the case under more serious charges to increase the punishment the Defendant received.
    The WashPost gives a lot of words to how Manafort's cases might be affected, but this case almost certainly started under Obama, and the "Separate Sovereign" rule dates back nearly a century. IOW, affecting Manafort's cases was not even a thing when the Gamble case was begun.

    I don't have a lot of sympathy for a felon who has broken the, but the principles of justice do not change based on guilt or innocence. In Gamble, the guy was guilty. In another case, the police officers in the Rodney King case, they had been found not guilty in state court, but the Feds (under GHWB) stepped in, charged the officers with violating King's civil rights, and with a different judge and jury, the officers were found guilty. IMO, the police officers were victims of the kind of double jeopardy the USC expressly forbids. I don't know the details of the Gamble case, but it seems very possible he was as well.
    Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving. - David Burge, Iowahawkblog

    Think of the Press as Democratic Operatives with Bylines and it All Makes Sense - Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit blog

    Modern journalism is all about deciding which facts the public shouldn't know because they might reflect badly on Democrats. - Jim Treacher

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Traddles For This Useful Post:

    Ed D (12-06-2018),Sled Dog (12-06-2018),Tennyson (12-06-2018)

  3. #2
    Senior Member Forum Donor Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsTagger Second Class3 months registered
    Overall activity: 99.6%

    Ed D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    2,227
    Thanks
    1,789
    Thanked: 2,414
    Rep Power
    4292855
    Quote Originally Posted by Traddles View Post
    Supreme Court Set To Hear Landmark Case On Double Jeopardy



    The WashPost gives a lot of words to how Manafort's cases might be affected, but this case almost certainly started under Obama, and the "Separate Sovereign" rule dates back nearly a century. IOW, affecting Manafort's cases was not even a thing when the Gamble case was begun.

    I don't have a lot of sympathy for a felon who has broken the, but the principles of justice do not change based on guilt or innocence. In Gamble, the guy was guilty. In another case, the police officers in the Rodney King case, they had been found not guilty in state court, but the Feds (under GHWB) stepped in, charged the officers with violating King's civil rights, and with a different judge and jury, the officers were found guilty. IMO, the police officers were victims of the kind of double jeopardy the USC expressly forbids. I don't know the details of the Gamble case, but it seems very possible he was as well.



    The same thing is true of the Mississippi case of the murdered "freedom riders" whose bodies were buried in an earthen dam. The defendents were acquitted in a state court and were retried in federal court under different charges using the same evidence. At the time, federal prosecutors claimed that they were being tried for different crimes because the charges were not the same. Federal courts had no jurisdiction in murder cases so the defendants were tried for violating the civil rights of the victims.

    In a way it sounds like a valid excuse for the retrial, but in another light, the defendants were being tried for the exact same acts under a different charge.
    A Mexican, a Jew and a colored guy walk into a bar. The bartender looks up and says, "Get the fuck outta here".

    - Clint Eastwood as Walt Kowalski in "Gran Torino".

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Ed D For This Useful Post:

    Sled Dog (12-06-2018)

  5. #3
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsCreated Blog entryVeteran
    Overall activity: 70.0%

    RMNIXON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    31,910
    Thanks
    18,457
    Thanked: 35,457
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    21474873
    How about a SCOTUS ruling on Special Council prosecutions for maximum sentence on petty crimes so they can intimidate a witness to make false confessions?
    "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

    - Ronald Reagan

  6. #4
    VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Overall activity: 79.0%

    Traddles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    6,300
    Thanks
    1,834
    Thanked: 7,233
    Rep Power
    14227552
    Quote Originally Posted by RMNIXON View Post
    How about a SCOTUS ruling on Special Council prosecutions for maximum sentence on petty crimes so they can intimidate a witness to make false confessions?
    Overcharging to get pleas to lesser charges is far from an uncommon tactic. The elevated risk and the cost of defending oneself is a rather strong incentive to do a plea deal, even if innocent.
    Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving. - David Burge, Iowahawkblog

    Think of the Press as Democratic Operatives with Bylines and it All Makes Sense - Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit blog

    Modern journalism is all about deciding which facts the public shouldn't know because they might reflect badly on Democrats. - Jim Treacher

  7. #5
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsCreated Blog entryTagger First ClassRecommendation Second ClassVeteran
    Overall activity: 86.0%

    Sled Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    42,299
    Thanks
    8,584
    Thanked: 27,070
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    21474883
    Alito argues that an "inept prosecutor IN A DIFFERENT COUNTRY" might flub the prosecution and thereby deny the chance for a prosecution in the US.

    Can we give this position the GIGANTIC WHAT THE FUCK it deserves?

    Last time I checked, US jurisdiction STOPS AT THE BORDER. If some knocks off an American citizen just 12 inches south of the border...that is a murder IN MEXICO.

    That means it's a crime the MEXICANS have to deal with. (And US world image would improve if we respected this principal.)

    Under what authority does ANY agency in the US have to arrest someone in another country and try him for crimes committed OUTSIDE US JURISDICTION?

    Ain't none.

    All the US should be able to do in that case is to honor a warrant for the arrest and extradition of the suspect to the country that does have jurisdiction.

    It is extremely troubling that a Justice on the Supreme Court refuses to recognize something as simple as this.

    If a man fires one bullet and kills one person, he can be put on trial for ONE murder in ONE jurisdiction, ONE time, and ONE TIME ONLY.

    The states and the feds can fight for just diction and who gets to run the show, but the Constitution tates, quite clearly, there will be only one show..

    The police arrested that Rodney King creature and the fascist DA in Los Angeles charged them with attempted murder. The jury disagreed.

    So the fascists in the US Justice Department charged them with bogus "civil rights violations" and they were subjected to a second trial FOR THE SAME SEQUENCE OF BATON STROKES.

    The doctrine of divided sovereignty is BULLSHIT and clearly unconstitutional.

    And the arguments are about THE RAMIFICATIONS OF TRUMP'S PRESIDENTIAL PARDON POWER?

    It too corrupt to last.
    Last edited by Sled Dog; 12-06-2018 at 04:30 PM.
    Freedom Takes "I Won't". - Eric Frank Russell

    We the People DID NOT vote in a majority Rodent Congress, they stole it via election fraud.

    1 out of 2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2

    = 1/4,194,304
    = "Heads, Always Heads, Heads Every Time"
    = "Rodents Cheating"

  8. #6
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsCreated Blog entryTagger First ClassRecommendation Second ClassVeteran
    Overall activity: 86.0%

    Sled Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    42,299
    Thanks
    8,584
    Thanked: 27,070
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    21474883
    Quote Originally Posted by Traddles View Post
    Overcharging to get pleas to lesser charges is far from an uncommon tactic. The elevated risk and the cost of defending oneself is a rather strong incentive to do a plea deal, even if innocent.
    They are not "overcharging ", they are demanding maximum sentences for PROCESS "crimes" to intimidate them and suborn perjury.
    Freedom Takes "I Won't". - Eric Frank Russell

    We the People DID NOT vote in a majority Rodent Congress, they stole it via election fraud.

    1 out of 2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2

    = 1/4,194,304
    = "Heads, Always Heads, Heads Every Time"
    = "Rodents Cheating"

  9. #7
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsCreated Blog entryVeteranRecommendation Second ClassTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 17.0%

    patrickt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Oaxaca, Mexico, for over twenty years. Born and raised in Memphis, TN, and worked in Colorado.
    Posts
    25,520
    Thanks
    2,979
    Thanked: 14,551
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    21474868
    For my entire career the rule was, as stated, one bite of the apple. It wasn't tried once for a crime but rather tried once for a criminal episode. You could not charge a man with attempted murder, lose and then charge him with manslaughter even if it were in a different court. One trial per criminal episode.

    Also, when I began in police work in 1966, there were very few federal crimes. For example, when President Kennedy was assassinated it was a state charge. There was no federal charge. Now, virtually everything is a federal offense if the prosecution so wishes. In my opinion, the goal is one government, in Washington, with the entire country run by bureaucrats.

    We've seen other changes. The District Attorney wasn't happy with me and initiated an investigation with me accused of covering up an illegal search. Aside from the fact there had never been an illegal search, the date of the alleged illegal search was well past the statute of limitations. Ah, but every day I didn't report the supposed illegal search was a new offense so they had, in effect, over a thousandest violations. The chief of our department requested an investigation by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. They were effectively nullifying the statute of limitations for political motives.

    And when did lying to the police become a crime. Martha Stewart did time for allegedly lying and so did Scooter Libby. As I recall, Mr. Libby made two statements, months apart, that were inconsistent. He said he got confused and the persecutors said he was lying. He did time, too. And, Sandy Berger admitted smuggling classified documents out of a secure building in his socks and underwear and later destroying the documents and he walked because of politics.

    It's disgusting so I'm hoping for the best with this Supreme Court.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •