Supreme Court unlikely to change double jeopardy pardon rule in Gamble v. US
15 replies, posted
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court appeared unlikely Thursday to change its long-standing rule that putting someone on trial more than once for the same crime does not
violate the Constitution's protection against double jeopardy.
The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be "twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" for the same offense. But for nearly two centuries, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled
that being prosecuted for the same crime once by a state and again in federal court, or the other way around, doesn't violate the provision because the states and the federal
government are "separate sovereigns."
The lawyer for an Alabama man, Terance Gamble, urged the justices to overturn those earlier decisions. Convicted of robbery in 2008, Gamble was pulled over seven years later for a
traffic violation. Police found a handgun in his car, and he was prosecuted under Alabama's law barring felons from possessing firearms. The local U.S. attorney then charged him with violating a similar federal law. Because of the added federal conviction, Gamble's prison sentence was extended by nearly three years.
Gamble's lawyer, Louis Chaiten of Cleveland, said the nation's founders understood the protection against double jeopardy to ban any second prosecution for the same offense. He
said that under English common law, the roots of American law, there was no "separate sovereigns" exception. A person could not be put on trial in England if already tried for the same offense in another country.
"The logic of your position," Justice Brett Kavanaugh told Chaiten, "is that the U.S. couldn't prosecute someone like that even if it was important for national security."
Alito and Kavanaugh making Trump and Manafort's lives more difficult.
"how do i fire a judge" is going to hit the google zeitgeist lists at this rate.
I'll be honest, this man's case seems unfair.
He was convicted in Alabama for a crime, and then the feds charged him for the same crime and added years onto his sentence.
That seems... not just.
there's not really much right about this case, the feds should have respected the state's sentencing and not charged him. Its overzealous prosecutors that caused this.
While I get the spirit of what you are saying, you need to remember that the United States is a federal system comprised of 50 states. In other words, he is punished according to different jurisdictions. One punishment at the state level, one at the federal level.
In this one instance, I actually find Alito's argument compelling (imagine not being allowed to try someone for war crimes if they are given a slap on the wrist in their own countries).
Typically the feds get involved when theirs good reason though, such as committing a crime across state lines. The feds just stepping in and slapping charges onto a dude who already did time is just questionable.
Except he received a properly proportionate punishment for the crime already.
This is not justice
It's just because of an asshole US Attorney for one of the federal Alabama districts, it's a loophole that has both pros and cons
More than that, they are different laws. He was charged for a crime against Alabama law, and then charged for a crime against federal law.
Covering the same issue.
To clarify, are you against the idea of punishment in separate jurisdictions in theory, or just in this case you think he didn't need the additional 3 years?
Because if its the latter i'm with you (maybe having some federal law about maximum punishment for non-violent crimes?), buf if its the former I kinda am persuaded by the constitutional necessity of having overlapping jurisdictions for the war crimes case above
I'm against the perversion of justice that has occurred here.
This also wasn't a war crime.
The feds should have respected the state court and declined to charge him, thus protecting their ability to do so if they feel the states aren't enforcing the laws right, while not overstepping and getting the right stripped from them, or the rights of states to prosecute damaged. This is a clear case of prosecutors overreaching and now everybody has to worry.
But the feds thought the punishment wasn't severe enough, so it makes sense that they should be allowed to exercise their rights to offer another punishment.
If the state punishment was 3 years extra longer would you be complaining the same? if the answer is yes then I understand what you are saying and I even agree with you, but if the answer is no then i don't really get it.
One action can spawn multiple crimes. If you threaten someone with a gun it can be multiple crimes, especially depending upon the circumstances and jurisdictions. One issue does not mean just one crime.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.