Difference between revisions of "Double Jeopardy"

From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 34: Line 34:
  
 
Additionally, a substantive crime and a conspiracy to commit that crime are not considered the "same offense" for double jeopardy purposes.<ref>''See'' United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378 (1992), ''available at'' http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=503&invol=378.</ref>
 
Additionally, a substantive crime and a conspiracy to commit that crime are not considered the "same offense" for double jeopardy purposes.<ref>''See'' United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378 (1992), ''available at'' http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=503&invol=378.</ref>
 +
 +
==The "Separate Sovereigns" Exception==
 +
 +
The "separate sovereign" exception to double jeopardy arises from the system of federalism in the United States, in which states are sovereigns with plenary power that have relinquished a number of enumerated powers to the federal government.  Double jeopardy will only attach to prosecutions for the same criminal act by the same sovereign, but as separate sovereigns, both the federal and state governments can bring separate prosecutions for the same act. The "separate sovereignty" doctrine was highlighted in the Rodney King Beating cases in the early 1990s.  Two Los Angeles police officers were convicted in federal court for committing civil rights abuses against Rodney King during the Los Angeles riots even though they had previously been acquitted in state court for excessive use of force. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling and held that where the defendant has violated the laws of two sovereigns, even if by a single act, he has committed two distinct offenses punishable by both authorities.<ref>''See'' United States v. Koon, 34 F.3d 1416 (9th Cir. 1994), ''aff'g'' 833 F. Supp. 769 (C.D. Cal. 1993), ''available at'' http://openjurist.org/34/f3d/1416/united-states-v-c-koon.</ref>
 +
 +
The U.S. Department of Justice has developed an internal restriction on pursuing a prosecution after state prosecution has failed, and will only pursue a second prosecution for "compelling reasons" after the prosecutor has obtained prior approval from the Assistant Attorney General, a restriction known as the "''Petite'' Policy."<ref>''See'' Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529 (1960), ''available at'' http://openjurist.org/361/us/529/petite-v-united-states.</ref>  A criminal defendant should not rely on this policy, however, as a total restriction against federal prosecution.
 +
 +
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.  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.
 +
  
 
= Notes =
 
= Notes =

Revision as of 10:18, 15 October 2010