7 ms·

This is actually exactly how it is meant to be. Double jeopardy prevents you from being tried twice by the same sovereign entity. As the state and federal gove

This is actually exactly how it is meant to be. Double jeopardy prevents you from being tried twice by the same sovereign entity. As the state and federal government are separate sovereigns, you aren't being tried twice by the same sovereign. It would be like being acquitted in russia and then charged in argentina. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause#Dual_sovereignty_doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause#Dual_sov...

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
CamperBob2 13y ago
Yeah, if Argentina were a Russian state, it would be exactly like being acquitted in Russia and then charged in Argentina.
- gaius 13y ago
  Give it time...
judk 13y ago
If your are going to downvote a lawyer quoting the law, please provide a refutation. Also, doenvoters, if you believe that Federal govt tramples your rights and power should be returned to local authorities, consider the consistency of your internal logic.
- dfc 13y ago
  I consider this philosophy to be quintessentially jeffersonian. A rejection of federalism is not a rejection of state power or an argument for anarchy.
EGreg 13y ago
IANAL but I think the double jeopardy vlause f the fifth amendment had been INCORPORATED against the states in the 80s man http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benton_v._Maryland http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benton_v._Maryland
- dfc 13y ago
  The extension of the double jeopardy clause to the states precludes a state from trying a defendant for the same crime twice. It does not prevent two separate sovereigns from trying the defendant for the same crime. The following excerpt is from Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation pages 1490-91:[^1] Although the Court had long accepted in dictum the principle that prosecution by two governments of the same defendant for the same conduct would not constitute double jeopardy, it was not until United States v. Lanza[53] that the conviction in federal court of a person previously convicted in a state court for performing the same acts was sustained. “We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject-matter within the same territory. . . . Each government in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other.”[54] The “dual sovereignty” doctrine is not only tied into the existence of two sets of laws often serving different federal-state purposes and the now overruled principle that the Double Jeopardy Clause restricts only the national government and not the states,[55] but it also reflects practical considerations that undesirable consequences could follow an overruling of the doctrine. Thus, a state might preempt federal authority by first prosecuting and providing for a lenient sentence (as compared to the possible federal sentence) or acquitting defendants who had the sympathy of state authorities as against federal law enforcement.[56] The application of the clause to the states has therefore worked no change in the “dual sovereign” doctrine. 53 260 U.S. 377 (1922). 54 260 U.S. at 382. See also Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312 (1924); Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 108 (1945); Jerome v. United States, 318 U.S. 101 (1943). 55 Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969), extended the clause to the states. 56 Reaffirmation of the doctrine against double jeopardy claims as to the Federal Government and against due process claims as to the states occurred in Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959), and Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959), both cases containing extensive discussion and policy analyses. The Justice Department follows a policy of generally not duplicating a state prosecution brought and carried out in good faith, see Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529, 531 (1960); Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22 (1977), and several provisions of federal law forbid a federal prosecution following a state prosecution. E.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 659, 660, 1992, 2117. The Brown Commission recommended a general statute to this effect, preserving discretion in federal authorities to proceed upon certification by the Attorney General that a United States interest would be unduly harmed if there were no federal prosecution. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON REFORM OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS, FINAL REPORT 707 (1971). [^1]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2013/content-detail.html http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2013/content-detail.h...
__anders__ 13y ago
> It would be like being acquitted in russia and then charged in argentina. No, "it would be like being acquitted in Russia and then charged in Moscow" or "it would be like being acquitted in Argentina and then charged in Buenos Aires".
- DannyBee 13y ago
  Actually, it's precisely not like that because they are not separate sovereign entities, like the states are separate sovereign entities from the federal government. This is exactly why it is not like being acquitted in russia and then charged in moscow. Being acquitted in russia and then charged in moscow would be double jeopardy.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

CamperBob2 13y ago

Yeah, if Argentina were a Russian state, it would be exactly like being acquitted in Russia and then charged in Argentina.

gaius 13y ago
Give it time...

judk 13y ago

If your are going to downvote a lawyer quoting the law, please provide a refutation. Also, doenvoters, if you believe that Federal govt tramples your rights and power should be returned to local authorities, consider the consistency of your internal logic.

dfc 13y ago
I consider this philosophy to be quintessentially jeffersonian. A rejection of federalism is not a rejection of state power or an argument for anarchy.

EGreg 13y ago

IANAL but I think the double jeopardy vlause f the fifth amendment had been INCORPORATED against the states in the 80s man http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benton_v._Maryland http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benton_v._Maryland

dfc 13y ago
The extension of the double jeopardy clause to the states precludes a state from trying a defendant for the same crime twice. It does not prevent two separate sovereigns from trying the defendant for the same crime. The following excerpt is from Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation pages 1490-91:[^1] Although the Court had long accepted in dictum the principle that prosecution by two governments of the same defendant for the same conduct would not constitute double jeopardy, it was not until United States v. Lanza[53] that the conviction in federal court of a person previously convicted in a state court for performing the same acts was sustained. “We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject-matter within the same territory. . . . Each government in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other.”[54] The “dual sovereignty” doctrine is not only tied into the existence of two sets of laws often serving different federal-state purposes and the now overruled principle that the Double Jeopardy Clause restricts only the national government and not the states,[55] but it also reflects practical considerations that undesirable consequences could follow an overruling of the doctrine. Thus, a state might preempt federal authority by first prosecuting and providing for a lenient sentence (as compared to the possible federal sentence) or acquitting defendants who had the sympathy of state authorities as against federal law enforcement.[56] The application of the clause to the states has therefore worked no change in the “dual sovereign” doctrine. 53 260 U.S. 377 (1922). 54 260 U.S. at 382. See also Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312 (1924); Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 108 (1945); Jerome v. United States, 318 U.S. 101 (1943). 55 Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969), extended the clause to the states. 56 Reaffirmation of the doctrine against double jeopardy claims as to the Federal Government and against due process claims as to the states occurred in Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959), and Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959), both cases containing extensive discussion and policy analyses. The Justice Department follows a policy of generally not duplicating a state prosecution brought and carried out in good faith, see Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529, 531 (1960); Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22 (1977), and several provisions of federal law forbid a federal prosecution following a state prosecution. E.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 659, 660, 1992, 2117. The Brown Commission recommended a general statute to this effect, preserving discretion in federal authorities to proceed upon certification by the Attorney General that a United States interest would be unduly harmed if there were no federal prosecution. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON REFORM OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS, FINAL REPORT 707 (1971). [^1]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2013/content-detail.html http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2013/content-detail.h...

__anders__ 13y ago

> It would be like being acquitted in russia and then charged in argentina. No, "it would be like being acquitted in Russia and then charged in Moscow" or "it would be like being acquitted in Argentina and then charged in Buenos Aires".

DannyBee 13y ago
Actually, it's precisely not like that because they are not separate sovereign entities, like the states are separate sovereign entities from the federal government. This is exactly why it is not like being acquitted in russia and then charged in moscow. Being acquitted in russia and then charged in moscow would be double jeopardy.