The federal prosecution of the officers who beat Rodney King illustrates the "separate sovereigns" principle. The State of California prosecuted the videotaped officers but failed to obtain any convictions. The Los Angeles Riots ensued. The federal government then prosecuted the officers for the same beating, alleging a violation of King's civil rights.
The federal convictions were valid because separate sovereigns had tried the officers. In the case Gamble v. United States , the U.
Supreme Court reaffirmed the separate sovereigns doctrine. The defendant in that case had pleaded guilty in state court to the crime of possessing a firearm as a felon. The federal government also charged the man for the incident in question, but under an equivalent federal law. The Supreme Court noted that sovereigns have their own offenses, meaning that in this kind of case the defendant really isn't being prosecuted twice for the same crime.
Accordingly, it decided that the second prosecution didn't violate the double jeopardy principle. Prosecutors often file multiple charges against defendants for the same set of facts. For example, a prosecutor might charge someone with both assault and assault with a firearm for pointing a weapon at someone else.
In that situation, if a jury were to convict the defendant of both offenses, double jeopardy might well block the judge from handing down a separate sentence for each crime. Double jeopardy, like so many criminal law concepts, is intricate. And the legal rules throughout the country, while often similar, aren't always exactly the same. States, for instance, can have their own double jeopardy protections that supplement the Fifth Amendment. Also, some state legislatures and courts might take different approaches than others.
If you want to know how or whether the double jeopardy principle applies to a situation you face, make sure to consult an experienced criminal defense attorney. The information provided on this site is not legal advice, does not constitute a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or will be formed by use of the site. The attorney listings on this site are paid attorney advertising.
In some states, the information on this website may be considered a lawyer referral service. Please reference the Terms of Use and the Supplemental Terms for specific information related to your state. Grow Your Legal Practice. Meet the Editors. The Prohibition Against Double Jeopardy. At its essence, the Double Jeopardy Clause stops the government from prosecuting or punishing someone multiple times for the same incident.
Double Jeopardy Basics "Jeopardy" in the legal sense describes the risk brought by criminal prosecution. The government possesses broad resources and power; prosecutors could potentially harass citizens by seeking multiple prosecutions against a citizen until obtaining a conviction, even if that citizen was in fact innocent.
Prosecutors could repeatedly prosecute a defendant who had already been acquitted. This burden would cause a defendant financial hardship and psychological damage from the uncertainty of never-ending criminal proceedings.
The answer to that is somewhat less than straightforward to the average person, given the way courts have interpreted this particular clause of the Fifth Amendment.
One of the boundaries that courts have established that limits our Constitutional protection against "twice be[ing] put in jeopardy of life or limb" is the concept of attachment. When jeopardy is said to "attach" is the first time in a legal proceeding at which courts legally recognize the accused has been put in jeopardy of life or limb as intended by the Fifth Amendment.
We might consider ourselves in jeopardy of life and limb when a police officer points a gun at or shoots us, tasers us, tackles us and pins us painfully to the ground with a boot on our back, handcuffs us and imprisons us, etc.
None of those things, however, are considered in the American legal system to put us in jeopardy for purposes of the Fifth Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy. Neither does being indicted or charged put us in such jeopardy, according to the courts.
Neither does being held in pre-trial detention without bond. Neither does being brought into pre-trial hearings or even selecting a jury "start the clock", so to speak, on jeopardy. The federal government may have a right to prosecute a crime that did not cross state boundaries, occur on federal property, or violate a specific federal law, as long as it had some connection to interstate commerce or another area controlled by the federal government. Jeopardy needs to terminate before the double jeopardy rule can be violated.
Jeopardy usually terminates when a case ends, such as when a jury returns a verdict or when a judge enters a judgment of acquittal or dismisses the charges.
In some situations, the prosecution may proceed with a retrial after the case ends without violating the double jeopardy rule. This is common when there is a hung jury or when a judge declares a mistrial. If the defense objects to the mistrial, the prosecution will not be able to retry the defendant unless it shows that there is a critical need to proceed with the retrial.
A critical need is not a demanding standard in this context, though, and even the absence of a juror may support a retrial over a defense objection.
At other times, the defendant may consent to a mistrial, which gives the prosecution an automatic right to retry the case in most situations. A defendant whose conviction was reversed on appeal may be retried without violating double jeopardy. However, any charge of which the defendant was found not guilty the first time cannot be retried. Last reviewed October Criminal Law Contents. Limitations on Double Jeopardy The protection applies only to criminal cases, so a defendant who was acquitted or convicted of a crime may be sued in a civil lawsuit based on the same conduct.
Criminal Law. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors in Criminal Sentencing. Restitution for Crime Victims. Receiving Immunity for Testimony in a Criminal Case.
0コメント