Double Jeopardy Clause Nullified By Supreme Court?

There is no remedy to bad judges

 

Liberty would be best be served with one crime, one trial, over.

 

This is somehow news that a racist southern state could acquit Klansmen of murders only to see the feds tee the same guys up for the same actions and convict them or vice versa? I mean why would you be shocked NOW?
The Justice Department and a coalition of 36 states had vehemently defended the status quo, which has led to successful second prosecutions after acquittals or hung juries.

Edgar Ray Killen[/a] of murdering three civil rights workers in 1964 after federal charges didn't stick. It helped the federal government convict two Los Angeles police officers for the notorious 1991 beating of Rodney King after a county jury acquitted four officers of nearly all charges. And it helped federal officials win a guilty plea from a South Carolina police officer for the 2015 shooting death of Walter Scott, an unarmed black man, after a state jury deadlocked.

USATODAY

 

If it's a hung jury, they are allowed to go ahead with a new trial. The defendant was not found innocent.

Maybe there should be a law though about how many times they could put them through a trial if the jury was undecided each time.

 

your comment is irrelevant to what occurred(s).

Basically, when a state of federal court fails because of misuse of the law, the "other" sovereign exercise power to prevent an abuse. Manafort is being teed up simply because Trump has repeatedly hinted at a federal pardon.

Al Capone got off for years because state court's couldn't show his illegal businesses, to the Feds got him in income tax fraud. LOL

 

Irrelevant, and in the Rodney King case, unjustified. Better every guilty soul in the universe go free, then 1 innocent be hounded for eternity--especially if the innocent one is you.

 

You certainly can have an opinion. But you start a thread with the assertion that the DJ clause was "nullified." That is untrue. The SC decision just left long time understanding of DJ to remain in place. A defendant may not subvert the justice system in one "sovereign" to escape the just desserts of his actions, and expect the other sovereign to say "oh well."

Nobody is getting convicted twice of the same crime. Although Manafort is pretty unique. NY is going to try, and most likely convict him, of crimes just so Trump cannot offer him a pardon for not cooperating with Mueller. If Manafort is not pardoned, and if he somehow manages to serve his federal sentence and not die in jail, then I hope NY would give him clemency.

 

No defendant is found innocent.

A defendant is convicted if found guilty as charged, and he is acquitted if he is found not guilty as charged.

There is no such thing as being found innocent, if you are into using terms of the legal system.

 

Excellent point.

 

The Vth Amendment guarantees that individuals may not "be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy..." A sovereign defines the law, in the US we have State and Federal laws, when one breaches both State and Federal law by a single act, both sovereigns can prosecute when they do not do so under the same law, even if under the same facts -Gamble changed nothing. Jeopardy only attaches, or applies, when the same sovereign prosecutes the same criminal act.

 

Were you involved in writing the 5th?

Are there any historical records that might support your position?

The language seems rather clear to me, and the writers of the Constitution were quite precise in their language. "the same offence" does not translate in any way to be "by different jurisdictions", despite your claim otherwise.

The individual is sovereign too. We appoint the government to also be sovereign when we created it. All political power flows FROM the people.

 

That's the way the Supreme Court has interpreted the double-jeopardy preclusion, see Ball v. United States 163 U.S. 662 (1896).

 

Really there three separate concepts being discussed. In the Ball case, it was NOT a question of fed/state dual sovereignty. Rather, Millard Ball was convicted, and two other guys acquitted in a state court of murder. The two convictions were overturned. ALL THREE were re-indicted. BUT MILLARD couldn't be retried because he was acquitted.

The broader issue is dual jurisdictions - state and federal - one is really the issue in Manfort's case. But Manfort's is different from most because in his case the feds got a plea or a hung jury, and now NY wants a bite. Generally the feds DO NOT reprosecute after a state acquits. The feds have a policy called Petit (after a real person). Generally, there has to be federal interest, something was very fishy in the state court, and likely the feds have enough evidence to convict.

The real point in Manfort is one that Trump supporters ignore. IF Trump rewards Manafort for not cooperating, then justice is perverted. That is "something fishy."

And NY actually has more stringent limits on subsequent prosecutions. I don't think NY can prosecute on exactly the same facts. But Manafort appears to have done funny money stuff with multiple banks.

But generally no one is actually punished more than once, or harassed forever, unless it's unusual. Mike Vick for example was convicted in federal court, and then the state indicted him and he pled guilty, but he didn't really have to serve more time. He probably wants to stay the hell out of Georgia though. LOL

 

How long has maniforte been in solitary confinement?

 

yep, that is why I am against the death penalty, kill one innocent person and it's state sanctioned murder

 

A very valid point to consider. Yet, was there any doubt concerning the guilt about John Wayne Casey? Ted Bundy? Son of Sam? Boston Strangler? The idiot that shot up the black church? And many more, Bonnie and Clyde, just to name two more.

 

one state sanctioned murder is one to many, plus I think LWOP is a harsher punishment anyways, Death is a get out of jail free card

 

That's the argument.

 

Yeh, but this time they're trying to have Trump pardon a crony. So naturally all the cons are going crazy

 

Thanks for that. Yes, courts do often engage in sophistry, especially when cases involve minutiae. Yes, courts often sacrifice individual rights for political expediency.

Still, the language is clear, whether any court agrees or not. We can assign our own meanings to words, at the expense of honest discussion.