Difference between revisions of "Double Jeopardy"

From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 42: Line 42:
  
 
Similarly, the "separate sovereigns" doctrine allows for two states to prosecute for the same crime given proper jurisdiction in both locations.  For instance, if a man commits a crime that occurs across the boundaries of two states, both states are allowed to prosecute the same charge on the same criminal acts.<ref>''See'' Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985), ''available at''http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/474/474.US.82.84-5555.html (holding that the defendant could be prosecuted in both Georgia and Alabama for the same kidnapping and murder charges).</ref>  Successive prosecutions by a state and one of its political subdivisions, such as a county, city or village, are not permitted.  Similarly, there will be no double jeopardy issues raised by dual prosecutions in the United States and by a foreign sovereign, although issues of diplomacy, international treaties and extradition agreements may be implicated in such proceedings.
 
Similarly, the "separate sovereigns" doctrine allows for two states to prosecute for the same crime given proper jurisdiction in both locations.  For instance, if a man commits a crime that occurs across the boundaries of two states, both states are allowed to prosecute the same charge on the same criminal acts.<ref>''See'' Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985), ''available at''http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/474/474.US.82.84-5555.html (holding that the defendant could be prosecuted in both Georgia and Alabama for the same kidnapping and murder charges).</ref>  Successive prosecutions by a state and one of its political subdivisions, such as a county, city or village, are not permitted.  Similarly, there will be no double jeopardy issues raised by dual prosecutions in the United States and by a foreign sovereign, although issues of diplomacy, international treaties and extradition agreements may be implicated in such proceedings.
 +
 +
==Civil v. Criminal Proceedings==
 +
 +
Double jeopardy does not apply when subsequent charges are civil in nature rather than criminal, as the two charges seek to redress different injuries and involve differing legal standards. 
 +
 +
Civil charges are meant to make whole a victim or the victim's relatives and are in fact remedial in nature.  By comparison, criminal proceedings are designed to serve the purposes of deterrence and retribution against criminal conduct.<ref>''See generally'' http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/double+jeopardy.</ref> Civil charges also carry a lesser standard of proof, wherein offences need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, while criminal actions must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
 +
 +
One recent example of dual civil and criminal proceedings was the multiple proceedings brought against O.J. Simpson relating to the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman.  While the State of California acquitted O.J. Simpson on the murder charge of his former wife and her friend, he was found liable for their deaths in three separate wrongful death civil suits filed by surviving members of their families and was forced to pay large settlements to them as a result.<ref>''See, e.g.'', http://law.jrank.org/pages/6879/Fifth-Amendment-Double-Jeopardy-Clause.html.</ref>
 +
 +
While civil penalties generally will not run afoul of the Double Jeopardy Clause, in rare circumstances a civil fine might be so extreme that it rises to the level of punitive in nature and thus is blocked by the Fifth Amendment. In ''United States v. Halper'', for example, the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited the federal government from seeking a $130,000 civil penalty against a man who previously had been sentenced to prison for the same offense of filing $585 worth of false Medicare claims.<ref>United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 (1989), ''available at'' http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=490&invol=435.</ref> The Court concluded that the gross disparity between the civil fine imposed and society's economic loss reflected a punitive aim instead of merely a remedial one.  It is important to note however that in ''Halper'', the civil fine was being imposed by the government, and it is unlikely that a private party seeking additional damages in similar circumstances would raise any Double Jeopardy Clause issues.
  
 
= Notes =
 
= Notes =

Revision as of 11:04, 15 October 2010