4 ms·

Reasonable. But returning to Snowden, “one executive wants to pardon and the other doesn’t” is pretty much by definition a case of differing interests. IMO this

Reasonable. But returning to Snowden, “one executive wants to pardon and the other doesn’t” is pretty much by definition a case of differing interests. IMO this question is more clear-cut than typical DJ questions. It’s just really hard for me to believe that POTUS could protect Snowden from prosecution in state courts via pardon. At the very least, a DOJ that wants Snowden in prison can side-step this whole question by leaving it to a state and keeping things out of federal court...

cryptonector 6y ago
The case up-thread was Manafort -- NY State, IIRC, wants him in jail and may prosecute if pardoned. I'm not sure which State laws Snowden might have violated, or which States might want to prosecute him. BTW, I can see an argument against double jeopardy in the Federal->State direction as opposed to the State->Federal direction: the former, if allowed, could see a defendant tried as many times as there are States + 1, and that can't possibly be in the interest of Justice.
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  > The case up-thread was Manafort Oh, I see. I was speaking into the even further up-thread context of Snowden :p Sorry about that. > I'm not sure which State laws Snowden might have violated E.g., http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08-732/Jurisdiction/HawaiiElectronic.pdf http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08-732/Jurisdiction/Haw... > I can see an argument against double jeopardy in the Federal->State direction as opposed to the State->Federal direction: the former, if allowed, could see a defendant tried as many times as there are States + 1, and that can't possibly be in the interest of Justice. + a lot more than 1 because of Native American jurisdictions It's a good pint, but the crime would have to occur in overlapping jurisdictions, which doesn't apply in the case of Manafort. I think even in the case of Snowden it'd be difficult to argue for jurisdiction outside of HI and maybe any states he passed through with HDDs. I just searched for drug trafficking and computer fraud cases that resulted in multiple charges for the same act in several states. I couldn't find any particularly egregious cases. I'm not even sure how important this is in the case of computer crime; jurisdiction gets hairy really fast.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > a lot more than 1 because of Native American jurisdictions Native American jurisdictions generally only have criminal jurisdiction over their own members for actions on their own land, that jurisdiction is Constitutionally an application of federal sovereignty, so where it applies it doesn't add an additional possible prosecution, just replaced (or provides an additional option) for one of the existing possible prosecutions. So, there's no double jeopardy impact.
    - throwawaygh 6y ago
      Correct; for that subset of cases this conversation is relevant but the same conclusions hold (lara)

cryptonector 6y ago

The case up-thread was Manafort -- NY State, IIRC, wants him in jail and may prosecute if pardoned. I'm not sure which State laws Snowden might have violated, or which States might want to prosecute him. BTW, I can see an argument against double jeopardy in the Federal->State direction as opposed to the State->Federal direction: the former, if allowed, could see a defendant tried as many times as there are States + 1, and that can't possibly be in the interest of Justice.

throwawaygh 6y ago
> The case up-thread was Manafort Oh, I see. I was speaking into the even further up-thread context of Snowden :p Sorry about that. > I'm not sure which State laws Snowden might have violated E.g., http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08-732/Jurisdiction/HawaiiElectronic.pdf http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08-732/Jurisdiction/Haw... > I can see an argument against double jeopardy in the Federal->State direction as opposed to the State->Federal direction: the former, if allowed, could see a defendant tried as many times as there are States + 1, and that can't possibly be in the interest of Justice. + a lot more than 1 because of Native American jurisdictions It's a good pint, but the crime would have to occur in overlapping jurisdictions, which doesn't apply in the case of Manafort. I think even in the case of Snowden it'd be difficult to argue for jurisdiction outside of HI and maybe any states he passed through with HDDs. I just searched for drug trafficking and computer fraud cases that resulted in multiple charges for the same act in several states. I couldn't find any particularly egregious cases. I'm not even sure how important this is in the case of computer crime; jurisdiction gets hairy really fast.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > a lot more than 1 because of Native American jurisdictions Native American jurisdictions generally only have criminal jurisdiction over their own members for actions on their own land, that jurisdiction is Constitutionally an application of federal sovereignty, so where it applies it doesn't add an additional possible prosecution, just replaced (or provides an additional option) for one of the existing possible prosecutions. So, there's no double jeopardy impact.
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    Correct; for that subset of cases this conversation is relevant but the same conclusions hold (lara)