Double Jeopardy Clause Nullified By Supreme Court?

Did the justices just say that you can try somebody for same crime as many times as you wish as long as it's not the same court? The "Sovereign" reasoning strikes me as pathetically unsound.

The greatest disappointment: Thomas, deciding in favor of enriching government power.

The proper reasoning: Neil Gorsuch-- "A free society does not allow its government to try the same individual for the same crime until it’s happy with the result." Perhaps it is he who will save Roe vs Wade and not Thomas.



https://www.foxnews.com/politics/su...-to-paul-manafort-as-he-battles-state-charges

 

SCOTUS is as compromised as either and both of the other 2 branches.

This is a plutocracy we live in, make no mistakes about it.

The spirit and letter of the US Constitution are dead in the water today.

 

The tree of liberty is getting thirsty.

 

It would be interesting to see if the Supreme Court rules whether Presidential pardon powers apply to state charges.


I also hope this doesn't mean double punishment. Wonder how that works, if someone is sentenced to 5 years for a crime in a federal court, and then also sentenced to 5 years for the same exact crime in a state court, just under a different law.

Are state or federal judges supposed to take into account whether the defendant has already been sentenced to prison time for that same crime in another court?

 

Not only that, but you can try them for the same crime more than once in the same court, as long as it's under a different law.

more information about that here

or see this thread: the problem with multiple different charges for the same criminal act

 

Essentially, the court is saying you can try them as many times as there are jurisdictions, the fed's, the state, the county, the city, whatever. The Court is stating one action may have many claims.

A nightmare made real by those we trust to know better. How soon before the court outlaws life for the living? How far away are we from Kira Peikoff’s nightmare world portrayed in her novel, ”Living Proof”. How soon before every unfertilized human egg is required to be saved to protect the life of the unconceived? Perhaps sooner than we think.

 

I see some huge civil liberties issues.

I'm glad there still exist some Liberals who care about these issues.

 

That isn't what they're saying. There is two systems, the state and the federal. If you're tried in a state court and found not-guility, the feds can come in and try get you some something. If I kill someone, I'll face a murder charge at the state level(assuming it don't make it federal right way) and if I'm found not guilty the feds can come in and charge me with violating that persons civil rights. Due to that fact that civil rights are a federal matter.

What the SCOUS is doing is looking at seeing if that is constitutional or not. And they stated that it is,They can't bounce you around for this place to place, either state or the federal system that is.

 

Yeah, the Fourteenth Amendment opened up a whole can of unintended worms.

In the past, prosecuting homicides were not the traditional purview of the federal government. Some of these Amendments have had unintended consequences, and change the whole nature of the Constitution.

 

What does the 14 have to do with double jeopardy?

 

Not much, it was just relevant to that particular example you brought up.

But a whole lot more things have been made federal crimes that did not used to be federal crimes a century ago. So the Constitutional jurisdictional place of the federal level of government is certainly a background factor to double jeopardy here. Long ago, the types of things that were federal crimes did not tend to be the same type of things that were state crimes, so there was little potential for double jeopardy issues.

 

It reminds of the (some) referendums of Europe. Just keep voting until they get the desired result. I dont mind if the vote is generations apart, but thats not the case.

Switzerland in '98 i think, voted to join the EU. 26% for joining, 30% turnout. Just a couple of years, they were asked again(i think 3 years later, more like the talk of the second Brexit referendum): 20% for joining, double turnout. They stopped.

Referendums of EU Constitution( succeeding and above national constitutions), they asked the French, got a big no no with some 70%, same turnout. They asked the Dutch, another big nono, same results. Both ignored and stopped asking the population since.

Democracies, like justice systems, can be easily hijacked, especially if the population is mindful or racism, gossip, celebrities, or what to buy next with lent money

 

Every year we take another ***** out of the safeguards put in place to protect us from Tyranny. Our justice system longer follows the Rule of Law or the founding principles - except when it suits them of course. Utilitarian justification for law is used to trash individual liberty and people have been brainwashed to think this is a valid justification for law "Harm Reduction/ If it saves one life".

It is a descent into kangaroo land .

 

Given that the state's charges are the same ones he was convicted of in federal court, and for which he was sentenced to prison, I think this is a departure from normal procedure. Normal procedure is that if you commit a crime that violates both state and federal law - bank robbery as an example - one court or the other tries the person, not both. So I think this is a politically motivated prosecution by the state. I do not agree with the Supreme Court's decision on this.

 

No, I think the President’s pardon power is clearly established:Article 2, Section 2, (1); “Power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” People are convicted for offenses against the US by Federal court.

No, I think this Supreme Court decision is worse as it is presumed the State’s substantive law is different simply because it is not Federal. There are lots of State laws that are identical to Federal law, no difference, but could result in two trials for same act.

I suppose they may consider this, If the convicted defendant is already doing time, the court could easily dispatch his second prosecution when the law is substantially the same, finding the facts adequately established and a meritorious adjudication.

 

Vohlok reports:

So, apparently this was the way things already were (not good).

Under the Vth Amendment:

 

I believe the first ten amendments were originally meant to apply to the federal government, not the states.
Though the Supreme Court took a different view on that later.

However, that leaves open the question about whether the federal government has a proper role in protecting individuals from individual state abuse.

There should be protections written into state constitutions as well.

The federal government should have dealt with this issue by passing a specific law. Maybe something like they should not be required to serve more prison time than the maximum sentence imposed on them by either court.

One additional problematic implication is the right to a speedy trial, namely that a defendant could be held for a length of time in prison by one court, and then after not being found guilty, held in prison for a further length of time by the other court, before they had a right to a trial.

 

Oh. That's all.

 

federal vs state, it's always been allowed - you can't try them twice in federal or twice in state court

just like OJ was tried in Criminal court then in Civil Court after being found not guilty in the prior

 

Civil Court I can see, no criminal liability; but the Fed State is worrisome. Ripe for abuse.

 

I agree, but that is way has always been

I also think if not guilty in a criminal court, that civil should not be allowed as you were found not guilty

now if guilty in criminal court, civil court should be allowed

 

There is an argument there.

 

I rarely see this happen except with people no one wants to defend like OJ, but at some point it may be fought in court and win

 

Yes, the atmosphere of Minority Reports is here now. Habeas Corpus is gone by legislative fiat. The spirit and letter of the Supreme Law of the Land are now null and void. National Security Letters have rendered the 4th quaint and academic.

 

Please, they are NOT liberals. Authoritarians simply can't be liberals. They (democrats) are responsible for most laws passed since 1933.